Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[quadraphonics]

Okay, let's review. In post #325 I said:

You shouldn't ever use this tactic. Nobody even reads it. If anyone wants to review the conversation, it's all archived right here in the thread anyway.

If someone follows you for a while in a car, then gets out and asks something like "Hey, what are you doing here?" I wouldn't consider that justification to preemptively attack that person.

Good for you. So what? What bearing does your personal opinion of a specific hypothetical scenario - which you have phrased specifically to align with said opinion - have on anything?

Note that your earlier statements which I took issue with contained no such disclaimers about personal opinions, but instead were presented as unequivocal legal facts. That was relevant, but empty of any support or even argumentation. What you have now is perfectly supported - it's simply a statement of your personal opinion - but of very little relevance. A jury isn't going to be asked the implied question here, which is basically "supposing we believe Zimmerman when he says he didn't commit murder, do you think he committed murder?"

It's confusing to me that you would ask this, since in the post to which I responded I said "I don't know if Zimmerman's claims are true."

You're being asked why you're running with the implications of taking Zimmerman at face value because you are doing exactly that, disclaimer or otherwise.

Your inclusion of that disclaimer only serves to make the question of why you are pursuing this hypothetical wherein Zimmerman's claims are all taken to be true as stated so vigorously, if you don't know whether any of it is true.

Why are you skipping over these salient questions of fact to pound on the tabletop about how Zimmerman's excuses are, indeed, excuses? What is your point?

Since "reasonableness" entirely depends on what the jury thinks is reasonable, it's impossible to "prove" whether or not hypothetical actions are reasonable. In theory, a jury might decide that ANY set of circumstances was reasonable self defense. So I'll grant you that I was probably stating things too strongly when I presented it as a fact that simply following someone couldn't constitute justification for attacking in self defense. I can't prove that some jury somewhere wouldn't be convinced that it was self defense to attack someone because they were following you, in some possible set of circumstances, so I apologize for over-stating the certainty of my position.

That nice - now how about dealing with, first, the actual factual questions of what did and did not occur (so that we might have some idea what set of circumstances said jury will actually be asked to evaluate) and, second, trying to establish some reasonable basis for assessing how an average jury is likely to view said circumstances?

What evidence is that?

You've already cited it yourself - the phone conversation that Martin was having when Zimmerman accosted him. Zimmerman claims that Martin snuck up behind him and yelled "you got a problem?" and then attacked him. In reality, we know that Martin knew he was being followed by a stranger, felt threatened, and attempted to flee, only to be subsequently caught and confronted by Zimmerman. This was all heard by an earwitness as it occurred, and it's totally at odds with Zimmerman's story that Martin snuck up behind him and assaulted him.

My best guess is that Zimmerman tried to pull some "citizen's arrest" type move on Martin, basically trying to detain him until the cops showed up, and Martin reacted about the way most people would to a stranger following them around at night and trying to detain them.

 

[steampunk]

It's hilarious that you say this:
And then this:
It's painfully obvious that you were too stupid to actually read and understand the definition of "stalking" that you yourself posted, and now you're trying to weasel out of it by twisting the definition of "repeatedly" to mean "a single continuous act."

The Florida law did not stipulate the term 'repeatedly'. The crux of our disagreement is about this stipulation.

It can be seen as a single act in an abstract way, but it can also logically be seen as more than one act. I've proven through given examples that my definition will hold under both interpretations.

I agree it is possible to see it your way: It's not repeatedly, because it was one occasion.

But, you see, the English language is not so simple. The strength of your argument relies upon denying other interpretations of what 'repeatedly' could imply. My argument can take the other interpretations on and thrive under them. Yours does not. Mine by deduction, is fundamentally more sound.

You see, something does need to happen twice to exist. Qualitative factors will determine this, not quantitative factors such as 'repeatedly'. I win the argument if we take your argument straight on. If we want to use the grammar in the law I quoted, pay attention to term 'or' in the statement we debate. We don't even need to consider 'repeatedly'. That's the only point you have and you loose on it.

I've also won the argument, because it can also be seen as more than one act strung together. It is correct to say:

He repeatedly chased him. He repeatedly followed him.

You rely upon a very narrow definition, which is not stipulated in the law, acting as if your very specific stipulation were implied there, but it's not and everyone knows it. So we must go with all the possible usages, I've shown some others, and you've been proven wrong.

 

[adoucette]

The Florida law did not stipulate the term 'repeatedly'. The crux of our disagreement is about this stipulation.

It does stipulate repeatedly which might be why Zimmerman was not also charged with Stalking.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Florida108

 

[quadraphonics]

The question of the statutory definition of "stalking" is a red herring. The issue is whether Zimmerman's behavior leading up to the shooting could reassonably be perceived as threatening - i.e., "stalking" in the colloquial, and not statutory, sense. "Menacing" might be a better word here, but that one also has specific statutory definitions. Point is not that Zimmerman committed some other crime in the lead-up to the killing, but how his behavior colors the narrative of the events.

It's pretty cheap and irritating how Zimmerman's defenders here keep running with this inane tactic of shifting the conversation to the statutory definition of "stalking," arguing that Zimmerman didn't "stalk" Martin - because he only did it once, right before killing Martin - and then, by implication, suggesting that Zimmerman didn't do anything reasonably perceptible as "threatening." What kind of asshat deploys rhetoric like that in public, with a straight face?

Maybe y'all racist scum should spend more time inspecting your urge to go around publicly defending a dude who stalked and killed an unarmed youth, and less time trying to concoct dishonest shitbird tactics to run the conversation into a ditch.

 

[Tiassa]

Rehash

The issue is whether Zimmerman's behavior leading up to the shooting could reassonably be perceived as threatening - i.e., "stalking" in the colloquial, and not statutory, sense.

I would add that the present round is also a rehash. See Adoucette's earlier attempt to introduce a legal definition, as well as a response concerning legal and vernacular definitions:

I think you're aware that there are differences between legal and vernacular definitions of stalking; you're relying on the legal. Merriam-Webster, however, defines stalk, as a verb, as, "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily". Once again, your argument depends on disqualifying any definition except the one you assert.​

And, of course, see Adoucette's insistence that he gets to establish other people's context.

That was all nearly a month ago.

Apparently we need to go through this all again.

 

[quadraphonics]

Apparently we need to go through this all again.

I find this zombie debate kind of telling, actually - once Zimmerman was arrested and charged, all the people who were outraged that he wasn't even charged have displayed relief that he was so charged, and a willingness to let the criminal justice system take its course (as they had demanded all along, despite being tarred as a "lynch mob" by Zimmerman's defenders). At that point, the life really went out of this thread (and similar ones all over the internet). The battle has been won, after all.

But the types who want to play defense attorney for Zimmerman don't seem to have changed tack at all. They still want to try this in public - and prove his innocence, at least in so far as such aligns with their racism. And if there's no new information or memes, well, they'll just keep running the existing lines over and over again. Are people looking for an opportunity to vindicate all the racism they've repeatedly doubled down on over the previous weeks? Do they identify strongly with Zimmerman and/or his racism?

 

[adoucette]

I would add that the present round is also a rehash. See Adoucette's earlier attempt to introduce a legal definition, as well as a response concerning legal and vernacular definitions:

I think you're aware that there are differences between legal and vernacular definitions of stalking; you're relying on the legal. Merriam-Webster, however, defines stalk, as a verb, as, "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily". Once again, your argument depends on disqualifying any definition except the one you assert.​

And, of course, see Adoucette's insistence that he gets to establish other people's context.

That was all nearly a month ago.

Apparently we need to go through this all again.

Nope, they have in fact been arguing the LEGAL definition of Stalking.

Stalking is not a loaded term. In fact it's a legal term. There is sufficient evidence in this situation to prove Zimmerman was in fact stalking Trayvon.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2930243&postcount=326

 

[keith1]

The audio evidence is clear in defining Zimmerman as disobeying a higher authority command to not persist in further action (whether or not an additional definition of stalking could be brought against him). This was clearly not just a mere suggestion to "stand down as police were on the way". This was an order, which Zimmerman failed to obey.

I am unfamiliar with the details of "Stand Your Ground" implementation and procedures, as well as "Police Authority Procedures" in regards to "Neighborhood Watch Personnel Command Authority", etc.

But clearly, disobeying a direct police order should be a problem for Zimmerman's defense, in that it is this crucial initial "known violation" that is responsible for all the events that were to come from and after it. Regardless of the details of those following events.

 

[adoucette]

Suggestions from a 911 Operator (not a policeman) that "we don't need you to do that" is not an official police order.

The police have in fact confirmed that there is no legal requirement for callers to obey the 911 operator.

Also several important statements were made at the bail hearing:

The defense attorney now has the lead State's investigator admitting under oath at the Bail hearing that he has no evidence that establishes that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and no evidence that conflicts with Zimmerman's statement that he was walking back to his car when the altercation started.

And then along with the pictures of his bloody head, which supports the contention that he was on the bottom getting his head smacked against the pavement, this came out at the Bail hearing as well, apparently substantiating the broken nose:

O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?

GILBREATH: The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O’MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

O’MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?

GILBREATH: No.

O’MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.

GILBREATH: No.

O’MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven’t seen any medical records to indicate that.

O’MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O’MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O’MARA: I’ll give them to the state. It’s a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven’t had them yet, I don’t want to cross you on them.

Nothing further, thank you, your honor.

.

 

[Repo Man]

The audio evidence is clear in defining Zimmerman as disobeying a higher authority command to not persist in further action (whether or not an additional definition of stalking could be brought against him). This was clearly not just a mere suggestion to "stand down as police were on the way". This was an order, which Zimmerman failed to obey.

I am unfamiliar with the details of "Stand Your Ground" implementation and procedures, as well as "Police Authority Procedures" in regards to "Neighborhood Watch Personnel Command Authority", etc.

But clearly, disobeying a direct police order should be a problem for Zimmerman's defense, in that it is this crucial initial "known violation" that is responsible for all the events that were to come from and after it. Regardless of the details of those following events.

And he was perfectly safe in his car. Even if Trayvon had ninja skills that could render a bag of Skittles to be a lethal weapon, that would not have been an issue if Zimmerman had stayed in his car where he was safe. He was in his car, and he had a gun. That's about as safe as it gets.

 

[keith1]

Zimmerman thwarting the 911 dispatcher's directives is "evidence of a moment of emboldened disregard" and must pass both the litmus test of "Proper Neighborhood Watch" procedures, as well as run the gauntlet of the details of required procedures, laid out in the "Stand Your Ground" rules of engagement and a jury's makeup, to accommodate this initial act of "emboldened disregard" which hints loudly at an aggressive foolhardy bravado behavior on the part of Zimmerman. This behavior is not what a jury would likely expect from an "innocent victim of uncontrolled circumstance".

 

[Nasor]

It's pretty cheap and irritating how Zimmerman's defenders here keep running with this inane tactic of shifting the conversation to the statutory definition of "stalking,"...

Actually steampunk was the one who decided to get technical about the legal definition of "stalking," then dug his heals in and went full retard about it, rather than just admit that he didn't read the definition (that he posted) carefully enough. I'll refrain from including the relevant quotes, since you previously indicated that you don't like it when people make you look like an idiot by juxtaposing your characterizations of what was previously said with what was actually said, but anyone who is interested is free to look through the record. And who was it who was just complaining about straw men?

 

[Nasor]

I find this zombie debate kind of telling, actually - once Zimmerman was arrested and charged, all the people who were outraged that he wasn't even charged have displayed relief that he was so charged, and a willingness to let the criminal justice system take its course (as they had demanded all along, despite being tarred as a "lynch mob" by Zimmerman's defenders).

Funny, I seem to recall that this latest round started when I responded to a post suggesting that people should riot if Zimmerman was found not guilty. But again, don't let what people actually said get in the way of your fantasies about what was said.

But the types who want to play defense attorney for Zimmerman don't seem to have changed tack at all. They still want to try this in public - and prove his innocence, at least in so far as such aligns with their racism. And if there's no new information or memes, well, they'll just keep running the existing lines over and over again. Are people looking for an opportunity to vindicate all the racism they've repeatedly doubled down on over the previous weeks? Do they identify strongly with Zimmerman and/or his racism?

No, the problem is that certain people want to say stupid shit with impunity, so they accuse anyone who tries to correct them wanting to "play defense attorney for Zimmerman," of being racist, etc.

 

[Nasor]

Suggestions from a 911 Operator (not a policeman) that "we don't need you to do that" is not an official police order.

The police have in fact confirmed that there is no legal requirement for callers to obey the 911 operator.

It was very racist of you to point that out, adoucette. Or, at least, you clearly have racist motives, even if the comment itself wasn't racist per se. You racist.

 

[quadraphonics]

Actually steampunk was the one who decided to get technical about the legal definition of "stalking," then dug his heals in and went full retard about it, rather than just admit that he didn't read the definition (that he posted) carefully enough.

And where, exactly, is the person holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make a capital case out of any instance of anyone saying something incorrect on SciForums?

Oh, right: there isn't one. Your interest in the framing in question is obvious, and the fact that you found some pretext to pounce on doesn't change anything. You're clearly looking for an argument where you get to play the smart legal expert and harangue some critic of Zimmerman for being an "idiot" or "retard," all while characterizing his behavior prior to the killing as non-threatening and imminently legal, indulging hypotheticals that exonerate him, etc.

Only questions raised by your response there are, first, whether you are really silly enough to believe that this cheap "steampunk started it!" excuse would distract anyone from your obvious inclinations (you think you're talking to second-graders or something?), and whether you imagine that your hostility and insults make you come off as aloof (they make you look insecure and petty).

I'll refrain from including the relevant quotes, since you previously indicated that you don't like it when people make you look like an idiot by juxtaposing your characterizations of what was previously said with what was actually said, but anyone who is interested is free to look through the record. And who was it who was just complaining about straw men?

Like I said: insecure and petty.

 

[quadraphonics]

Funny, I seem to recall that this latest round started when I responded to a post suggesting that people should riot if Zimmerman was found not guilty.

We were in the middle of discussing the finer points of scalp injuries, actually, when you siezed onto a post from the previous page to use as a springboard into your chosen framing.

You had multiple opportunities to stick to substantive issues, but at every turn you chose to indulge irrelevancies - the statutory definition of stalking, the hypothetical that Zimmerman's story is 100% true, etc. Every time I tried to get you back to the substance, you either retreated into some other technicality, got angry and hurled accusations at me, or simply did not respond at all.

But again, don't let what people actually said get in the way of your fantasies about what was said.

You seem very committed to the fallacy that so long as you can point to some pretext that you were responding to, you bear no responsibility for the framing and position you choose to promote - vigorously and rudely, I might add.

This whole "he started it" line is just so preposterously juvenile. It doesn't impress anyone, and attempting to use it as a perch for condescension and insult is just laughable.

No, the problem is that certain people want to say stupid shit with impunity, so they accuse anyone who tries to correct them wanting to "play defense attorney for Zimmerman," of being racist, etc.

Silly Nasor - were you not aware that the entire attraction of all anonymous message boards, everywhere, since the beginning of the internet, is exactly that they allow people to say stupid shit with impunity?

And what are you, the stupidity police? You're duty-bound to go around correcting any and every incorrect assertion on SciForums, and therefore somehow bear no responsibility for the opinions, perspectives, and worldview that you express in the process, or what? Exactly what are the mechanics of this cheap dodge you're attempting here? If steampunk says something incorrect, then anything said by anyone in response to that is "his fault?"

Meanwhile, regardless of anything that anyone else does or does not say, you are clearly playing defense attorney for Zimmerman. And you seem pretty racist, to boot. And you seem to have elided the fact that I'm the one pointing that stuff out, but not the one who has said any "stupid shit" that you are trying to "correct." Indeed, it's you who is engaging in all these long-winded tactics to avoid responding to substantive questions. It seems that you do not want to participate in any discussion whose terms are other than "Nasor chastizes and humiliates stupid, radical zealots who want to lynch poor, innocent George Zimmerman." When pressed to do so, you respond by throwing a hissy fit, hurling obscene insults, and generally threadshitting.

 

[Nasor]

And where, exactly, is the person holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make a capital case out of any instance of anyone saying something incorrect on SciForums?

I merely posted a few sentances telling steampunk that he was obviously wrong about the legal definition of "stalking," a subject that HE brought up. Steampunk was the one writing long essays about it. But of course, at this point I'm not at all surprised that you would attempt to mischaracterize the conversation. You've done it over and over.

Only questions raised by your response there are, first, whether you are really silly enough to believe that this cheap "steampunk started it!" excuse would distract anyone

So you write a post in which you accuse me (at least, you appeared to mean me) of diverting the conversation to the technical definition of "stalking," and then accuse me of being "cheap," and trying to "distract people" when I point out that I'm not the one who took the conversation there? Nice. I'll leave it to others to decide which of us is threadshitting.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — A note on "stalking"

Mod Hat — A note on "stalking"

The difference between vernacular and legal definitions of stalking has already been discussed.

The present dispute over the term is complicated by an invocation and erroneous reading of the Florida stalking statute. The dispute even involves barbs about reading comprehension, including the application of conjunctions and articles in a sentence.

We will not prohibit the use of vernacular so that legal terms have exclusive authority in cases where words have both general and specifically legal definitions. In truth, I can promise members that they do not want the moderators attempting to enforce such a standard.

Furthermore, I would note that there are many, many words that one can call loaded, but that approach involves many presuppositions about a word in question, as well as a member's context. Sometimes, we can avoid subsequent difficulties within a discussion if people simply don't make lame arguments about loaded terms.

In this case, one splitting hairs can say that Zimmerman did, in fact, repeatedly follow Martin—i.e., first in his vehicle, and then on foot after his behavior frightened the young man.

But we do not necessarily need to delve so deeply. The whole argument that Zimmerman merely "followed" someone does not work. He "followed" someone in a truck, and, after this behavior apparently frightened Trayvon Martin, pursued him on foot. Suggesting this behavior is merely following someone, in order to establish that "following" is not justification for self-defense, is clearly a partisan argument within the context of arguing self-defense or murder.

Thus, "stalking" as a legal term, in Florida, clearly includes among its requirements, repeated behavior. As a word in the general vernacular, however, it's a different definition. The legal definition is a specialized and refined derivative of the vernacular, not vice versa.

Retreating to specialized definitions can be problematic. To wit, should we enforce the specialized definitions of theology in the Religion subforum? As I noted, I can promise members that they do not want the moderators attempting to enforce such a standard.

To the other, if one is going to invoke a specialized definition, then it would behoove them to interpret and apply that definition correctly.

There are no warnings or cards to be handed out here, but I would ask members to move on with the general discussion, and not continue this digression about "stalking". There is so much more going on in this case that we ought not devote such effort to missing the forest for the trees.

Thank you.

 

[spidergoat]

I wish people would stop calling Zimmerman a "neighborhood watch captain", that title holds no authority whatsoever.

 

[Phlogiston]

I am impressed how much hatred and foolishness can come out of a case that we do not have all the evidence required to form a proper opinion. Zimmerman has not had his day in court. Anyone siding for either side in this case at this point is wrong and unjust. We are supposed to work from the presumption of innocence in the United States of America.

I'm withholding any opinion on the case until all of the evidence is presented in a court of law.

Condemning someone based on their race or the race of another is just the same as racism.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are pushing this narrative because it profits them. If you believe they are anything but racists themselves, you need only look at their own words.

I support the second amendment but you wont find me taking facts from the NRA either.

If you want to prove yourself "more enlightened" then you cant support either side until the FACTS are presented in court.

And here's some food for thought:

articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station

Why haven't you heard about this? Why is it not national news?

STOP being consumers of rhetoric and propaganda. Do your duty to JUSTICE and wait for the real evidence in a real court to make your judgments.

AND BY THE WAY, news reporting isn't evidence. Sworn testimony in a courtroom and physical and forensic evidence, submitted by sworn barristers before a sitting judge is evidence. Until then all is speculation.

The loss of a human life needlessly is a tragedy.

If Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, the evidence will prove it. If he is not how many of you will have the fortitude of character to apologize for wrongfully condemning him?