Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106

Thread: George Zimmerman

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fuckin' Bible belt....
    Posts
    1,361


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOTO13 View Post
    Everything that is legal isn't ethical. Big fucking deal. If that is true and if you stand by that, you'd better be ready to put damn near every attorney and poltician is prison. It's a stupid argument that makes no god damn sense. What isn't ethical to someone is perfect to someone else. All depends what side of a decision you are on. You live and base your opinions on 20/20 hindsight.
    So you believe that we shouldn't bother to pursue our ethical convictions, simply because they aren't convenient?
    "I'm sorry
    For all the things that I never did
    For all the places I never was
    For all the people I never stopped
    But there was nothing I could do...
    "

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,125


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    So you believe that we shouldn't bother to pursue our ethical convictions, simply because they aren't convenient?
    Hell, pursue them all you want, just don't hang your entire argument on it. When you come right down to it, most of life is based on being somewhat unethical. Someone is being taken advantage of and someone is using someone. But to linger on this bs about eithical or unethical on the GZ/TM judgement is pure fucking stupidity. Would it be more ethical to not follow the law and find GZ guilty? You want chaos? That would have been chaos.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    I don't have much of an opinion on the actual verdict, the jury probably had their reasons. I never assumed Zimmerman acted out of malice or racism, but the whole situation still should have never happened, and I'm not certain he shouldn't be guilty of something.

    I don't know how I'd react if I were followed, it could go any number of ways and I am sure it would depend on the situation. Feeling threatened and scared like that can make you react in unpredictable ways.

    I'm not hoping for the day your friend gets beat up llamas, I'm just saying that if some woman slaps him or a boyfriend punches him in the face... he kind of had it coming.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,053


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    My argument is that what is legal is not ethical, and I have disdain for people who say "what he did was legal, therefore he did nothing wrong."

    I agree that we can never know for sure what happened the night of the murder, and therefore we cannot presume legal guilt because there is a reasonable doubt. But that sword cuts both ways -- you cannot say, "we don't know what happened for sure, therefore we know that Zimmerman did nothing wrong." What we DO know is that Trayvon was not committing a crime, nor did he have any clear intent to, and so Zimmerman's actions turned out to be unnecessary and false; the only justifications I have heard for why he followed Trayvon was that Trayvon "looked suspicious." If that's all it takes, then by law, Trayvon did nothing wrong by following him back to his truck, if that DID happen, because if I were Trayvon, I would certainly have thought that a man following me at night and talking hushedly into his phone was suspicious -- and since suspicion is apparently grounds for pursuit, the whole "Trayvon followed him back to his truck" argument is moot; since neither of them could possibly know what the other was thinking, it's not unrealistic to think that BOTH of them could have been suspicious of each other. But I never hear this narrative when people are discussing possible scenarios.

    People make excuses for Zim, but then turn around and say the same excuse doesn't apply to Trayvon. It's hypocrisy, and it doesn't help the charges of racism against Zim supporters when they so adamantly and unapologetically apply a double-standard like that.
    I'm letting the rest of this go because it's a huge waste of time, but I don't know why you've been countering me left and right when we pretty much agree. I don't know why it bothered you so much that I learned a few facts from a biased survey when, again, we pretty much agree. And even again in the above quoted text, you go into assumption that you don't think I can make, even though I never made them. This is the problem you have with labeling and pigeon-holing. You argue with me as though I'm one of those supposed Zimmerman supporters who thinks anyone who argues otherwise thinks Zimmerman was a racist. You argue with me like I think Zimmerman did nothing wrong. You bring up the same points you'd bring up to them, even though they don't apply to me.

    Also, why do you keep referring to Zimmerman by surname but Martin by first name? Very weird.



    Quote Originally Posted by WebDudette View Post
    I'm not hoping for the day your friend gets beat up llamas, I'm just saying that if some woman slaps him or a boyfriend punches him in the face... he kind of had it coming.
    It could happen, I'm not saying it couldn't. I'm also not saying he should do what he does. I don't, however, thinks he deserves to be beaten up. But apparently that's not what you guys were saying, so it doesn't really matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,928


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    If you had kept reading that same article, you would see that the part of SYG most people object to pertains specifically to *deadly* force
    I actually had read the majority of the article and have no idea why you assumed I had not. However, nowhere in the article did it explain to me why certain members of this bbs have a problem with SYG laws, nor could it. That's why I asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    Anyway, most SYG laws are redundant; many states already have what's called a "Castle doctrine," which says you can SYG if your home, or in some cases your workplace, school or vehicle, is attacked (which most people, even liberals, have no issue with, myself included), and so all SYG does is extend that protection to more public places as well.
    Extending that protection to public places is hugely significant and not at all redundant. If castle doctrine could be amended to include public places then, and only then, would SYG be redundant. But that would be antithetical to the very concept of castle doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    (A) it's a very easy law to abuse, as you can see if you read up on SYG conviction rate statistics; (B) it encourages vigilante confrontations in public places, i.e. "playing hero;" and (C) in many cases, the exact definition of the parameters for invoking SYG laws are not very well defined
    Your third point is good though it renders your first two points rather redundant. The law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. It encourages vigilante confrontations because the law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. All true, mostly redundant. Ultimately, it appears you only dislike that the law is vaguely defined and open to abuse. You seem unwilling or unable to find an ethical flaw in the spirit of the law. Surely then we just need better parameters governing its use?

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    It takes the violence out of the hands of trained professionals and puts it into the hands of untrained, oft-impulsive (and sometimes downright conflict-seeking) civilians.
    Now this, this is a little scary. You think "professional" violence is fine but "civilian" violence is a problem? And you imply that these "professionals" are not downright conflict-seeking? You know what the most surprising thing about the Trayvon case was? It's that Zimmerman wasn't a cop. Usually it's your lauded professionals who follow and shoot unarmed black youths. Racism and violence are institutionalized within US law enforcement. I've been friends with two former cops. One of them was active during a race riot and saw a fellow officer murder an unarmed black man before falsifying evidence to get away with it. My point? Just that you might be a little naive if you think it's fine to leave violence in the hands of "professionals" and you might be a little naive if you think you can rely on "professionals" to protect you.

    Perhaps naive isn't the best choice of words. I don't wish to sound confrontational or condescending. I respect your opinions and I'm interested in what you have to say. I just feel strongly that we, and indeed all living things, have the right to defend ourselves and shouldn't have to rely on others to protect us if we don't want to. Furthermore, laws are rarely perfect. I suppose I would rather see a murderer go free than an innocent man go to prison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    Teenager sneaks into his girlfriend's house in the middle of the night, the dad (my brother) hears it, comes upstairs and nearly shoots the guy before realizing who he is. And he legally could have killed the guy.
    A very drunk homeless guy just kind of wandered into our house one night. We'd forgotten to lock the door, but at the moment, we didn't remember that and thought he'd broken in. We shooed him out, but the castle doctrine again would've allowed us to kill him. What the fuck? How can people support that?
    Well, because on both those occasions people were doing what they shouldn't have been doing. They didn't get shot, which is good, but if they had been shot it would have been their own fault for clearly behaving like rapists/murderers. Seriously, I've never felt the urge to enter someone else's home without being invited and I understand I'm not supposed to. I understand that if I did enter someone else's home without permission I would look like a major fucking threat and could face lethal force.

    What would you prefer? A rapist/murderer enters your home and you can't legally kill the guy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    I find it weird how awful you guys think this is. A guy goes for a walk through the crowded city and takes the direction of some girl for a short while (because it's never long before she goes into a cafe or a store, or he loses her, since it's not actually stalking). I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but part of it is that I don't have his charisma. I'm pretty sure he's been noticed before, but never had a problem. Nor should he. He is completely harmless.
    You made it sound worse originally, but regardless, it's not really disturbing. I often see a girl with a really nice butt and feel glad we're walking the same direction. When we part ways I am sorry to see such a fine ass go. I've never gone out of my way to follow one but hey, if he's got nothing better to do it's not necessarily worrying. It is, however, quite similar to behaviour which would be disturbing. Like following someone home. Perhaps waiting outside their home then following them some more. Following them on more than occasion. You know he isn't doing these things because, well, you know him. But when you describe his behaviour to a stranger it could be misconstrued. At the very least it could sound like a precursor. Like torturing animals as a child. Though obviously that is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether it's a precursor for anything else and so not a perfect example.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,053


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    Well, because on both those occasions people were doing what they shouldn't have been doing. They didn't get shot, which is good, but if they had been shot it would have been their own fault for clearly behaving like rapists/murderers. Seriously, I've never felt the urge to enter someone else's home without being invited and I understand I'm not supposed to. I understand that if I did enter someone else's home without permission I would look like a major fucking threat and could face lethal force.

    What would you prefer? A rapist/murderer enters your home and you can't legally kill the guy?
    I guess the more it's discussed, the more I realize I agree most with the laws in many EU countries on the issue. As Harley explained earlier, you can only use violence if it's proportionate to the act. You should be able to kill the guy if the person tries to attack you, but not just because he enters your house. A dumb 16yo kid doesn't deserve to be shot because he snuck in to see his girlfriend.

    You made it sound worse originally, but regardless, it's not really disturbing. I often see a girl with a really nice butt and feel glad we're walking the same direction. When we part ways I am sorry to see such a fine ass go. I've never gone out of my way to follow one but hey, if he's got nothing better to do it's not necessarily worrying. It is, however, quite similar to behaviour which would be disturbing. Like following someone home. Perhaps waiting outside their home then following them some more. Following them on more than occasion. You know he isn't doing these things because, well, you know him. But when you describe his behaviour to a stranger it could be misconstrued. At the very least it could sound like a precursor. Like torturing animals as a child. Though obviously that is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether it's a precursor for anything else and so not a perfect example.
    I didn't mean to make it sound worse; I guess I just left out detail to keep it shorter. But yes, I realize I'm a bit biased because I know the guy and I know he's not a creep in any way. I still don't think violence toward him would be fair, though. I guess it goes along with the above - I do believe in punishment fitting crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    Right, but it starts getting difficult when I have no idea who this person in my daughters room is and whether or not they are armed. Just as I have no idea who this weird guy following me is, and I have no idea if he's a threat to my safety or not.

    I mean llamas, I don't think your friend deserves to be attacked either, I'll take you word for it, he's probably a good guy. but imagine what some of the people he is following could be feeling? Like... I know he thinks it's all fun and games, but that's how people get fucking kidnapped and murdered, you know. It could really upset people and why? so he can 'follow that butt'.

    I have a friend who is visiting Chicago right now, she's visiting some people but she'll probably be alone often enough. I asked her how she would feel if a random man followed her around for a 5-10 minutes. I didn't mention anything else. Her response was that it's kind of terrifying and would probably upset her.

    If you'll notice, at no point did I say he should be beat up. I have no interest in that conversation, really. I just think it's kind of fucked up to follow people around.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,928


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    As Harley explained earlier, you can only use violence if it's proportionate to the act. You should be able to kill the guy if the person tries to attack you, but not just because he enters your house. A dumb 16yo kid doesn't deserve to be shot because he snuck in to see his girlfriend.
    I'm just somewhat torn on that. Personally, I think I would wait to be sure before I took violent steps to ensure my safety. That's my choice. I'm just not certain I think you should be legally obligated to do that in your home. Consider that the time you spend trying to decide if you are in danger could be all the time an assailant needs to harm you in some way. If somebody chose to act immediately instead of allowing that time to pass, well, I wouldn't blame them for that and certainly wouldn't want them to go to prison for it. The only thing I'm certain about is that this is an extremely complex issue and it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to craft the law in such a way that all possible situations are accounted for fairly and satisfactorily. I'm glad it's not my job.

    I agree, a 16yo kid doesn't deserve to be shot for sneaking in to see his girlfriend. Conversely, the girlfriend's dad doesn't deserve to go to prison for shooting the boyfriend if he believed he was protecting his family from an intruder. At that point a tragedy has already happened and sending the father to prison would only compound the misery. Prison is for punishment and/or rehabilitation. In this example neither would be required, even if the father had mistakenly killed a harmless kid. It would be an honest mistake and a terrible tragedy, but surely not a crime. In a sense justice is simply about making the best of a bad situation. When someone has been killed nothing is ever going to bring the deceased individual back. When someone has been raped nothing is ever going to undo the harm that has been done. Punishment/rehabilitation is the best we can do with a bad situation. But sometimes there is no way to make a bad situation better at all. Sometimes taking any action at all is only going to make it worse. Like punishing the father for an honest mistake.

    It's just never going to be easy or simple, and no result will ever satisfy everybody. But to get back on track a little, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws basically only differ from normal self-defence laws in that you are under no obligation to attempt to flee/retreat/escape/whatever before taking action to defend yourself. At least, that's really the only difference as far as I understand it thus far. So really, we're discussing self-defence in general now more than SYG or castle doctrine. Because we're basically discussing how long you should spend deciding if someone is a threat before taking action and not whether or not anyone should be attempting to flee.

    Properly on topic, well sort of, what do you guys think would have happened if Martin had somehow killed Zimmerman during the altercation instead of the other way around? Could SYG have actually been successfully used to defend whichever one of them survived? I'm sort of thinking it possibly could. That's weird.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fuckin' Bible belt....
    Posts
    1,361


    Default

    Would it be more ethical to not follow the law and find GZ guilty? You want chaos? That would have been chaos.
    Has nothing to do with the law or the trial. The trial is over. The argument originally started when Llamas posted a survey complaining that people were calling Zimmerman racist, and using a ton of logical fallacies to assassinate Tray's character while promoting Zim's; that was what I was addressing.

    I'm letting the rest of this go because it's a huge waste of time, but I don't know why you've been countering me left and right when we pretty much agree. I don't know why it bothered you so much that I learned a few facts from a biased survey when, again, we pretty much agree. And even again in the above quoted text, you go into assumption that you don't think I can make, even though I never made them. This is the problem you have with labeling and pigeon-holing. You argue with me as though I'm one of those supposed Zimmerman supporters who thinks anyone who argues otherwise thinks Zimmerman was a racist. You argue with me like I think Zimmerman did nothing wrong. You bring up the same points you'd bring up to them, even though they don't apply to me.
    You internalize too much of what I say. If I don't directly accuse you of it, then I'm not talking about you.

    And I don't see anything wrong with criticizing the survey for being horribly biased, even if we agree on points that exist independently of it. Isn't that the thing you love to call me on? Posting what you perceive to be a twisted version of facts in order to push an agenda? Yes. Yes it is.

    Anyway, I've noticed you go through these same motions every time we argue: first you take my criticisms to heart (in this case, my original criticism of the survey had nothing whatsoever to do with you; I fixated on the survey and criticized it, and you jumped in defending it as if I had attacked you instead); then, after that argument is well under way, you decide that we agree and so why am I arguing with you? And then you finally throw up your hands and accuse me of "arguing with you as if you were someone else." If you would not take my arguments so personally, we would never have had a major disagreement in the first place. Not everything I say is about you.

    Also, why do you keep referring to Zimmerman by surname but Martin by first name? Very weird.
    You got me, I'm a secret racist against Zim. It's all part of the conspiracy. Nice catch.

    Extending that protection to public places is hugely significant and not at all redundant. If castle doctrine could be amended to include public places then, and only then, would SYG be redundant. But that would be antithetical to the very concept of castle doctrine.
    I disagree. Defending one's home is a much more personal matter because it is unambiguously your property. In public, it's not necessary for you to "stand your ground" so long as you can protect yourself, your family and your possessions. Unless someone's life is at risk (in which case existing law already permits retaliation/defensive conflict), there's no need for a civilian to try and play hero, potentially risking his or her own life as well as potentially resulting in other people getting hurt if the conflict spreads.

    Your third point is good though it renders your first two points rather redundant. The law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. It encourages vigilante confrontations because the law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. All true, mostly redundant. Ultimately, it appears you only dislike that the law is vaguely defined and open to abuse. You seem unwilling or unable to find an ethical flaw in the spirit of the law. Surely then we just need better parameters governing its use?
    Pretty much. I have a tendency to write in train-of-thought, so I kinda articulated that as I was typing it. But yes. I would be much happier with self-defense laws if they weren't written in such a way that they are so easy to exploit using subjective, vaguely-defined criteria. It would also be nice if they had a wider spectrum of responses to violence, rather than "run away" or "kill someone." There are ways to handle violence without killing someone. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I really think it's a mistake to reduce every violent conflict to "kill them or run away."

    Now this, this is a little scary. You think "professional" violence is fine but "civilian" violence is a problem?
    No, and you're missing the point. The point is that civilians are supposed to retreat from the scene and allow trained law enforcement to take care of it. When civilians get unnecessarily involved in a crime, it greatly increases the likelihood that something will go wrong and somebody will get hurt. If you have a chance to stop someone who has a gun, for example, then power to you, but if you mess up and get somebody hurt, it's even worse than if you hadn't tried at all. And if you have a clean chance to get away and you choose not to in order to play hero, you're putting yourself and others in danger.

    It's not that "cops being violent is okay," it's that there's a *reason* we have cops, and that's because they are specially trained to deal with violent crimes. If you want the power to go around stopping criminals, then become a cop.

    My point? Just that you might be a little naive if you think it's fine to leave violence in the hands of "professionals" and you might be a little naive if you think you can rely on "professionals" to protect you.
    So what is the job of law enforcement, then? If we are not supposed to trust them to resolve violent crimes, what is the alternative? Anarchy? Would you abolish the police force? Or something else?

    I just feel strongly that we, and indeed all living things, have the right to defend ourselves and shouldn't have to rely on others to protect us if we don't want to. Furthermore, laws are rarely perfect. I suppose I would rather see a murderer go free than an innocent man go to prison.
    That's why there's a difference between fighting at a Wal-Mart (for example), and fighting on a street in the middle of the night.

    Also, which is worse: an innocent man going to prison, or an innocent man being killed?
    "I'm sorry
    For all the things that I never did
    For all the places I never was
    For all the people I never stopped
    But there was nothing I could do...
    "

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,135


    Default

    Now, let me tell you about that 2010 case, because it's on the subject.

    In 2010, a 73 year old man shot two girls who were robbing his house. The 2 girls were around 15 year old. They were from Eastern Europe. A polite press way to say they were Roms.

    Huge debate here on wether it was justified or not.

    But the law was applied. The girls didn't see him coming, they never came toward him and when they saw him, they tried to run. They didn't die though, only wounded.

    He spent about a month in jail; now is out but he hasn't been judged yet, apparently (Criminal justice takes time in France ! ). But he will be sent before a court.

    Because you don't try to kill someone simply because he entered your property without authorization, or because he was robbing your property.

    Personnally, I am nothing but happy that a human life, even a thief's human life, is more valued than goods.
    ___________________________________________

    All the Beautiful Things you do

    Respect my authoritah !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •