relax

Author Topic: Zimmerman Case discussion  (Read 3982 times)

Offline braun

  • Running for Governor
  • *********
  • Posts: 1897
Zimmerman Case discussion
« on: May 29, 2012, 11:00:36 AM »

mod note:  This discussion was broken off from another thread, in order to keep the threads on topic.  The quote by Billz was the first on the Zimmerman topic.

People have such an unhealthy attitude about guns in NYC because they have been ridiculously stigmatized.  In what sense would the gun have made this situation worse?  It actually could have cooled the situation down by, you know, preventing the guy from slashing the face of the barkeep.  This unhealthy attitude about guns is spreading, sadly.  Witness the unjustified furor in Florida over George Zimmerman's legitimate act of self defense.

It hasn't been proven that it was self defense and I dont' believe that it was.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 03:33:05 PM by daisy »

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male

It hasn't been proven that it was self defense and I dont' believe that it was.

Perhaps self defense is too strong of a phrase.  To clarify, I simply mean that Zimmerman found himself in a situation where someone was beating him severely which he felt--and which many would argue--invoked his right to defend himself, terminally if need be.  Call it "defense of self" if self defense doesn't work for you.  I admit we should wait for the facts to come out, as all we have right now to suggest "defense of self" are impartial witness statements, audio evidence of Zimmerman screaming for help, Trayvon's father's initial statement that it was not his son screaming for help, and physical and photographic evidence of what happened to Zimmerman.  There are many things that could have happened just outside the realm of known facts and we have to take a look at the supernatural as well.

Offline King of Long Island City

  • Council Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 395
Zimmerman, who was armed, called the cops on an unarmed kid, then chased him down the street, and ended up shooting him in the head. Granted we don't know all the facts (and will only ever know one side), but such an incident is outside what is normally referred to as "self defense" and the initial charges in the case support that.


If Zimmerman did not have a gun, would he have chased Martin? I'm guessing no.

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Zimmerman, who was armed, called the cops on an unarmed kid, then chased him down the street, and ended up shooting him in the head. Granted we don't know all the facts (and will only ever know one side), but such an incident is outside what is normally referred to as "self defense" and the initial charges in the case support that.


If Zimmerman did not have a gun, would he have chased Martin? I'm guessing no.

It sounds like what precipitated Trayvon being shot was his impromptu mixed martial arts practice on Zimmerman's face.  Zimmerman was carrying a firearm well within his rights--in fact he was advised to buy that firearm by a police officer because of an angry pitbull who lived next door--and he was also well within his rights to follow Trayvon.  Now where it gets interesting is that Trayvon was well within HIS rights to tell Zimmerman to eff off.  Except he didn't.  Evidence suggests he followed Zimmerman once he turned to go back to his car, asked Zimmerman if he had a problem, and said "Well you've got one now."

The state has a tenuous case, they would not have pushed for these charges if not for the obvious racial and societal tensions around the case, and they will not get anything to stick.  I'll bet they come to Zimmerman with a plea bargain for a lesser charge.  Maybe they'll tell him he will serve 5, out in 2.  Because they want to avoid the riots that they'll have on their hands otherwise.  I hope Zimmerman doesn't take the bait and sees this redux of the Duke Lacrosse case through.

Offline NYCGoalie

  • Council Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2012, 09:35:51 PM »
I'm kinda wondering why this topic is on the main forum.  I'm assuming it has to do with gun use in our area???
If that's the case, I'm glad we don't have a "stand your ground" law here in NYC.  Could you imagine?
Here's the way I picture it:  I'm walking with my kids towards Ditmars.  Suddenly, a group of kids ("of color", naturally**)  turns the corner of the cross street.  Maybe thier from St.John's Prep, maybe they're from the neighborhood...who knows.  All male, all wearing pants so low thier underwear hangs out, Yankee baseball cap with the tags still showing, wifebeater shirt or oversized t-shirt; standard uniform for "the youth" nowadays.  Some are about a-buck-and-change in size, but there's always one big one who's about 6-feet or larger. 
I get nervous; I'm outnumbered and with my children, I feel like my kids are in danger.  I yell out, "THEY'RE CHARGIN' RIGHT FOR US!!!!!!!", which then leads me to take out my semi-automatic (carried in a concealed leather holster; for comfort and style, naturally) and just mow them all down.
Under the "stand your ground" laws, a person need only have a "reasonable" measure that they are in danger.  And as any lawyer can tell you, "reasonable" can mean just about anything.  Any lawyer worth thier salt can find a jury of people who would feel threatend by the site of a group (not just one kid) all wearing "the uniform" comming right at them and deem that fear as "reasonable".   And mind you all, I did yell out "THEY'RE CHARGING RIGHT FOR US!!!".   Who's to say I'm wrong.   There may be an eyewitness, and there may not be one.  They may have not bothered to even look my way and verify if what I said was true.   But they sure heard me yell, and when the shots rang out, they headed for cover.  Unless someone was taping, there's no way to verify for sure if my statement was accurate or not.  Maybe it was'nt true...and maybe it was.   Either way, I'm got my "reasonable" grounds covered.
Sound ridiculous?   Well, actually, play the scene out for a second.  You'll see that no, it's not so outlandish.  I'm protecting my family.  I have no prior record.  The kids I shot fit into a nice stereotype which would lead others to sympathize with my "reasonable" feeling. I have no reason to lie; nothing to gain (or maybe I do).   I can find a jury to at least deadlock...so I walk.  Doesn't matter what I did; I can play the victim just as much as the kids I shot.
I can see this picture happening wayyyyyyyyyy too much here in NYC; with people using this "extension" of self-defense as a means to a detrimental end.  No way should we adopt this rule.  No....freakin'.....way.
_________________________
*Before anyone gets on my case about not being PC, I happen to be a person of color. 

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
There a several points that trouble me here. First, you sound like it's okay to kill another human being if you're in a fist fight. And then you envoke the supernatural......didn't God say...."thou shall not kill" Of course, we know that God ordered the Isrealites to kill lots of people over the years.
The one point you don't mention is that 911 told him to stay in his car. It's on the tapes. If Zimmerman had followed that order....we would have a different story. Actually, we would not even be talking about this.
However, I do agree that we don't know the whole story. For me, as I watched the debate unfold, what they were asking for was their day in court. And rightly so. Even the local detective thought charges should be brought up.
Ultimately, can anyone justify a kid dying for walking down the wrong block?
 
Perhaps self defense is too strong of a phrase.  To clarify, I simply mean that Zimmerman found himself in a situation where someone was beating him severely which he felt--and which many would argue--invoked his right to defend himself, terminally if need be.  Call it "defense of self" if self defense doesn't work for you.  I admit we should wait for the facts to come out, as all we have right now to suggest "defense of self" are impartial witness statements, audio evidence of Zimmerman screaming for help, Trayvon's father's initial statement that it was not his son screaming for help, and physical and photographic evidence of what happened to Zimmerman.  There are many things that could have happened just outside the realm of known facts and we have to take a look at the supernatural as well.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline daisy

  • President
  • **************
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Female
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2012, 10:17:22 PM »
I'm kinda wondering why this topic is on the main forum.  I'm assuming it has to do with gun use in our area???
Woops - thanks for pointing that out.  I've moved it to Random Gabble.

Offline NYCGoalie

  • Council Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2012, 10:21:43 PM »
People have such an unhealthy attitude about guns in NYC because they have been ridiculously stigmatized...This unhealthy attitude about guns is spreading, sadly.
Though I'm not a gun owner (nor have I even held a gun; other than my biceps), I can somewhat understand a gun owners perspective.  To be fair, the overwhelming majority of registered gun owners are responsible individuals who have no intent to hurt other people.  The problem, I believe, is that many gun owners believe that since the overwhelming majority are upstanding citizens, there should be no limiting restrictions on gun ownership.
 
I say this is "the problem" because that sense of logic has one fatal flaw (pun unintended): that the actions of one person who makes an infraction should not create impeding regulation to the rest of those within the group.
 
Think about this: a very small group of people caused the events of 9/11 (to those conspiracy theorist, take a hike.  You are dillusional).  A slightly larger group belong to the terrorist organization which trained that same very small group.  Yet, on a national level, we've scrutinized an entire religion and stereotyped a billion people from a region of the world due to the act of a small group of people from that region.  And at the very least we have created rules which effected everyone's means of travel, everyone's means of communication and everyone's means of banking...all because of a small group of people.  Fair?  No.  Useful?  Probably not.   Would anyone argue that all this wasn't necessary?   Since there have been susequent terrorist attacks which have been thrawted by Federal authorities, I'd argue they were.
 
We have safety devices and warnings on all types of things from toys to dishwashing fluid.  Are the majority of people abusing the toys are drinking the Dran-O?  No.   But were there probably a couple of people who did things with products that were never intended by the manufacturer?   Yeah, probably.   Does it effect all of us who use these products?   Yeah, absolutely.
 
Are regulations and rules a pain?  Sure.  But without them, we then have to live in a world based on complete and mutual trust.   And if you have every riden the NYC subway, can you HONESTLY say that even in the year 2012, people can live in complete trust of eachother and feel that every person around you will act appropriately?!?!?   Really?
 
And so we come to gun control.  And again, while the majority of gun owners are not nuts and don't (I hope) wish to shoot every black and latino person that comes across thier path...I ask you all, isn't it at least a little reasonable - given U.S. history - that there are a couple of folks out there who would like nothing more THAN to actually shoot every black and latino that comes across thier path?   
 
And here's the follow up question: assuming they exist, would anyone know who they are BEFORE they shoot and kill?   That's right; we wouldn't.  So is it fair to assume every Sheilk is strapping C-4 in thier underwear?   No.   But unfortunately, we do.  Is it just as fair to assume every gun owner is a Ted Nugent listening fan who would just as soon shoot a brown person who crosses thier path?   Of course not.   But unfortunately, I do.  Because with my luck, I might just be that brown guy who turns the corner and catches the Ted Nugent fan on a bad day. 
 
I just don't have the belief that I can trust every person around me to act appropriately...especially with a gun.   Maybe one day, I can have that belief.  But each day I commute on the subway proves me otherwise.

Offline JoeyC

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2012, 12:33:35 PM »
In parts of country where guns ownership is easy, crime is low.  Upstate New York has higher gun ownership percentage, but lower gun killing   percentage.  In Switzerland, gun ownership was mandatory , might still be.  Every male over age 18 HAS  to own an assault type rifle, since they have no army. Yet  drive bys and shootings over parking  spots are almost   non existent.    It's the type of people we have here and in some other major cities, not the gun ownership.

Offline 28Grand

  • Global Moderator
  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1714
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2012, 02:32:23 PM »
JoeyC it's been proven that states with the highest rates of gun ownership also have some of the highest murder rates, mostly by handguns.
 
I'm not against gun ownership per se but I don't think it should be made easy. A person needs to study and be trained to drive a car before he or she is licenced, why not guns?
 
While it's true in Switerland, all males over 18 are issued with an assault rifle, it's also true that they are given training to use them and they are not allowed to carry any weapons outside unless they have a special permit.
 

Offline JoeyC

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1279
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2012, 02:40:20 PM »
JoeyC it's been proven that states with the highest rates of gun ownership also have some of the highest murder rates, mostly by handguns.
 
I'm not against gun ownership per se but I don't think it should be made easy. A person needs to study and be trained to drive a car before he or she is licenced, why not guns?
 
While it's true in Switerland, all males over 18 are issued with an assault rifle, it's also true that they are given training to use them and they are not allowed to carry any weapons outside unless they have a special permit.


I know abut the swiss, but unlike us, they follow rules. Imagine giving every male age 18 in New York an assault rifle, and telling  them not to  take  it out?   If we had  been doing  that here past 40 years, it would be one massacre after another.   

Offline holyfrjole

  • Council Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 380
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2012, 11:53:39 AM »
Considering Zimmerman was just brought back into custody because he allegedly lied about his finances and passport, his credibility about what went down with Martin is seriously shot to hell. The man is an absolute moron --  1) Jail house calls to anyone BUT your lawyer are almost always recorded -- don't talk about anything other than the weather, 2) When you've got a case in which you absolutely must testify to defend yourself, don't ruin your credibility by lying under oath, and 3) (and here's the most important one) don't ever piss off the judge. Lying, especially about money, will piss off a judge to no end.

I suspect they'll re-release him, but with a much higher bond and require him to turn in the other passport (which his lawyer took the fall for).

I'd hate to have to pick the jury on this case -- with the amount of media coverage and how people have already determined guilt and innocence, it'll be virtually impossible to panel an impartial jury.




Offline King of Long Island City

  • Council Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 395
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2012, 05:08:07 PM »
Quote
It sounds like what precipitated Trayvon being shot was his impromptu mixed martial arts practice on Zimmerman's face.  Zimmerman was carrying a firearm well within his rights--in fact he was advised to buy that firearm by a police officer because of an angry pitbull who lived next door--and he was also well within his rights to follow Trayvon.


Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the police tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin?


So Zimmerman is chasing after Martin, with a gun, why, exactly? What was he expecting would happen?


Martin's dead, so we don't have his side of the story; but had Zimmerman just stayed inside and not attempted to enact vigilante justice against someone who wasn't breaking the law, or bothering him at the time the incident began, Martin would be alive and no one would know who Zimmerman is.


Following someone with and asking for a fight, over nothing, doesn't justify shooting them, in my opinion.

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
There a several points that trouble me here. First, you sound like it's okay to kill another human being if you're in a fist fight. And then you envoke the supernatural......didn't God say...."thou shall not kill" Of course, we know that God ordered the Isrealites to kill lots of people over the years.
The one point you don't mention is that 911 told him to stay in his car. It's on the tapes. If Zimmerman had followed that order....we would have a different story. Actually, we would not even be talking about this.
However, I do agree that we don't know the whole story. For me, as I watched the debate unfold, what they were asking for was their day in court. And rightly so. Even the local detective thought charges should be brought up.
Ultimately, can anyone justify a kid dying for walking down the wrong block?

It is ok to kill someone if you are in mortal danger.  It wasn't a fist fight, it was a one sided beatdown in which Martin was on top of Zimmerman, according to witnesses.  Zimmerman apparently screamed for help about 14 times as Trayvon mercilessly rained blows down upon him.  Martin didn't die for walking down the wrong block, he died for what he did after that and for his faulty assumption that Zimmerman was unable to defend himself.


Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the police tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin?


So Zimmerman is chasing after Martin, with a gun, why, exactly? What was he expecting would happen?


Martin's dead, so we don't have his side of the story; but had Zimmerman just stayed inside and not attempted to enact vigilante justice against someone who wasn't breaking the law, or bothering him at the time the incident began, Martin would be alive and no one would know who Zimmerman is.


Following someone with and asking for a fight, over nothing, doesn't justify shooting them, in my opinion.

It has been documented that Zimmerman and his neighbors personally witnessed groups of teens (of various races) commit petty crimes in the neighborhood.  In fact, one of the kids who Zimmerman witnessed got away before the police could arrive, hence his somewhat overzealous pursuit of Martin.  However, no one has suggested that he "chased" Martin in the sense you seem to imply.  He may have followed him, but people seem to buy into this idea that Zimmerman chased Martin from behind and shot him in the back.

What actually happened, based on witness statements, is that Zimmerman walked back in the direction of his car at which point Martin exchanged words with him and then commenced to savagely beat him.  What happened prior to that is totally irrelevant.  The police told Zimmerman to head back to his car for his own protection--apparently they were right, as Martin's violent outburst illustrates.  However, Zimmerman's failure to immediately returning to his car does not justify Martin's actions.  Nor does it erase the fact that Martin was initially the violent aggressor.

Zimmerman's actions in following Martin might warrant a stern "hey, not cool man."  Whereas Martin's actions were criminal.  He was only innocent up to the point that he started beating Zimmerman.

Offline braun

  • Running for Governor
  • *********
  • Posts: 1897
Re: Zimmerman Case discussion
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2012, 11:20:06 AM »
Well now Zimmerman is back in jail where he belongs.  Good. I hope he stays in there for a very long time for taking an innocent boy's life.


 

Visit our sister site Jackson Heights Life