[ConciselyVerbose]

h4nnib4l, on 16 July 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I love how most of the people arguing the pro-gun side of this know fuck-all about guns outside the vacuum of forum-debate and maybe shooting a few cans. Wanna know how I know? Because this isn’t a pro-gun situation, this SOB just put people like me in the position to defend my beliefs, and fuck him for that. Zimmerman fucked up, and a kid is dead. None of the laws apply? Bullshit. One of the first things you learn in a CHL class (any of you pro-Zimmerman peeps have one?) is that you are now obligated to do EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO AVOID ALTERCATION. That doesn’t mean run, and I don’t think you should have to. It doesn’t mean get hit, shot, or stabbed a bit before you draw, and I don’t believe you should have to. There isn’t a magical line, that’s why we have juries and trials and such, but Zimmerman left that line far, far behind when he harassed Martin. Some guy follows you through a neighborhood, and eventually gets out and accosts you: how the fuck do you think you’d react? Here’s the kicker: Martin was a kid. I’d be hard pressed not to break GZ’s nose too (unless I was carrying). Bringing pot into it? Really? Completely unrelated. And really guys, how the fuck do you think it went down? You think GZ got out of his car and said “Excuse me young man, but I have reasonable cause to believe that…”??? Fuck no it didn’t. GZ picked a fight, started losing, and then used his gun. UTTERLY DESPICABLE. I would be fucking ASHAMED if any of my students had done the same, and would have probably been willing to testify for the prosecution. Fuck George Zimmerman.

If you call the cops and say some guy is harrassing you, they'll likely tell you that unless he's done something, you're on your own (so to say that TM could have gotten assistance from the police is a bit silly). To restate something I already said - one of the first things you learn in a CHL course is that, by carrying, you are precluding yourself from the right to conduct yourself otherwise. You CANNOT INSTIGATE ALTERCATIONS. Plain and simple. To insinuate that, by following and harrassing Martin, Zimmerman was doing otherwise is to show an astounding lack of situational awareness.

Depricated, I think I remember your story about disarming some dude on your way to a Larp thingy. Your story makes me wonder if you've ever even been around a gun before. Personally, I call bullshit. I think you've seen too many movies, and maybe taken a martial arts class that gave you a false sense of badassery. I could be wrong, but whatever, please just stop acting like dealing with muzzle of a gun is easy, it's insulting to those of us who have.

Quote

Cops spend a lot of time getting trained to handle situations so that guns don't go off

Not to argue against your point jon, but I’m actually pretty disgusted with how LITTLE training cops get with their weapons. I can’t imagine carrying a weapon and being as poor of a shot. I say this to say that I think that, in order to carry a gun in public, you should have to show a hell of a lot more proficiency than is currently required in most places. If you really feel that you should be allowed to carry a gun on the off chance that you need one (as I do), then you should be willing to train.

This is an example of a pathetic prosecution absolutely failing at their job. Pretty sure my kids could have handled it better (I didn’t pay attention to the whole thing), but failing to show that Zimmerman fucked up here is amazing. I carry a gun, and I’ve been in plenty of fights (drunk asshole Marine for a few years), so I can picture how this went down, and I can’t come up with a scenario where GZ isn’t directly responsible for causing the situation that led to TM’s death. Yes, in the moment, GZ was defending himself, but it’s from an attack that he provoked. If there’s not a felony for that, then we need one. I believe in my right to carry a weapon, and I exercise it, but there is absolutely no room for anything like this.

farrell2k, on 15 July 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

If you are the type of person who is so paranoid of others and fearful for your life that you have to actually carry a loaded weapon in public, you have mental issues. Likely Paranoid Personality Disorder, and that alone should bar you from even owning a gun.

Hey, it’s nice to have farrell2k back to make sweeping statements about the intelligence and mental state of everyone who disagrees with him again. Yay!

Great post, for the most part. I don't own a gun (I'm a college student and live in a fraternity full of alcoholics; I can't imagine all the possible ways that's a bad idea), but I likely will at some point, and am wholeheartedly for gun rights. I also believe owning a gun is a responsibility. Zimmerman didn't live up to that responsibility, and a kid died for it.

[supersloth]

That's the kicker, by all accounts, if you take zimmerman's statements as truth and fact (which, come on), even in that case how would he not be guilty of manslaughter at the very least? once the cops told him no and he went anyway, manslaughter was the very LEAST of charges that should have been found against him. i can't even process how bad the prosecution fucked this up.

fucking florida.

[atraub]

Couple things.

h4nnib4l, on 16 July 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Some guy follows you through a neighborhood, and eventually gets out and accosts you: how the fuck do you think you’d react?

It seems equally likely to me that Zimmerman was attempting to keep an eye on the kid either to catch him in a crime or to be able to point him out to the police when they arrived. There's no evidence that Zimmnerman made any attempt to speak to TM or touch TM before he was attacked. Did he? The world will never know. But I can understand his thinking, even if it's based on bad ideas and faulty assumptions.

Quote

but failing to show that Zimmerman fucked up here is amazing

The trial wasn't to prove whether or not Zimmerman fucked up. It was to prove whether or not he shot TM in self defense.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 08:54 AM

[supersloth]

when you fuck up it changes the situation which changes whether an act was self defense.

[ConciselyVerbose]

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

That's the kicker, by all accounts, if you take zimmerman's statements as truth and fact (which, come on), even in that case how would he not be guilty of manslaughter at the very least? once the cops told him no and he went anyway, manslaughter was the very LEAST of charges that should have been found against him. i can't even process how bad the prosecution fucked this up.

fucking florida.

If zimmerman's story is accurate he abided by the law. I think it's a sign of a bad law that he can be acquitted based on that situation, but it is on the legislation, not the court system.

[atraub]

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

That's the kicker, by all accounts, if you take zimmerman's statements as truth and fact (which, come on), even in that case how would he not be guilty of manslaughter at the very least? once the cops told him no and he went anyway, manslaughter was the very LEAST of charges that should have been found against him. i can't even process how bad the prosecution fucked this up.

fucking florida.

As torind pointed out, he didn't actually disobey the police. The police said "we don't need you to do that" and he did it anyways. At no point did they say "we order you to stay in your vehicle or go home".

Even if he had disobeyed the police, that doesn't make him a murderer.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 08:58 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

It seems equally likely to me that Zimmerman was attempting to keep an eye on the kid either to catch him in a crime or to be able to point him out to the police when they arrived.

We've already established that this was stupid and he put himself in a position he shouldn't have been in.

Quote

The trial wasn't to prove whether or not Zimmerman fucked up. It was to prove whether or not he shot TM in self defense.

That's a rather jaded and narrow minded way of looking at it. If someone is getting out of their car to follow you on foot, wouldn't you feel threatened? Let's look at it from both sides. I get that Zimmerman was tired of vandalism and robberies in the neighborhood, but you don't follow someone. Let the police handle it.

Quote

As torind pointed out, he didn't actually disobey the police. The police said "we don't need you to do that" and he did it anyways. At no point did they say "we order you to stay in your vehicle or go home".

The police can't order him to do that. I think anyone can reasonably see that. Again, I don't see why it didn't occur to him that he would be putting himself in a situation he shouldn't have been in. When the police tell him that they don't need him to do something, he shouldn't do it.

[atraub]

Trials are to determine whether your behavior is legal or illegal. They are not intended to determine if your behavior is intelligent, moral, ethical, responsible, or even rational. We are governed by laws, not opinions.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:03 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Let's use your argument for a minute- the trial was to determine if it was in self-defense. Then that would be the very narrow view that Martin was allegedly bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement. That's all the defense has to argue to create reasonable doubt. It certainly raises questions- how did the two end up there?

And you never answered my question- wouldn't you feel threatened if someone was following you, especially if they got out of their car to follow you? There are two sides here.

[supersloth]

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

That's the kicker, by all accounts, if you take zimmerman's statements as truth and fact (which, come on), even in that case how would he not be guilty of manslaughter at the very least? once the cops told him no and he went anyway, manslaughter was the very LEAST of charges that should have been found against him. i can't even process how bad the prosecution fucked this up.

fucking florida.

As torind pointed out, he didn't actually disobey the police. The police said "we don't need you to do that" and he did it anyways. At no point did they say "we order you to stay in your vehicle or go home".

Even if he had disobeyed the police, that doesn't make him a murderer.

but it establishes that he ignored the police and his own shitty decision making led to the death of another person. much like someone making the decision to drive fast can lead to a car accident which can lead to a manslaughter verdict. and make no mistake about it, his decision making led to the death of trayvon. we can argue about how right or wrong his decisions were on a moral scale till the cows come home, but either way, the decisions he made led to unnecessary death of another person. that's criminally negligent.

[atraub]

Something to that effect has happened to me before. When I was keenly aware I was being followed, I went home, not attacked.

[supersloth]

well, once again, tm 'attacking' is not a fact that i'm aware of.

[macosxnerd101]

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Something to that effect has happened to me before. When I was keenly aware I was being followed, I went home, not attacked.

Again- did you feel threatened or not? Was the person following you not at fault at some level?

[atraub]

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

That's the kicker, by all accounts, if you take zimmerman's statements as truth and fact (which, come on), even in that case how would he not be guilty of manslaughter at the very least? once the cops told him no and he went anyway, manslaughter was the very LEAST of charges that should have been found against him. i can't even process how bad the prosecution fucked this up.

fucking florida.

As torind pointed out, he didn't actually disobey the police. The police said "we don't need you to do that" and he did it anyways. At no point did they say "we order you to stay in your vehicle or go home".

Even if he had disobeyed the police, that doesn't make him a murderer.

but it establishes that he ignored the police and his own shitty decision making led to the death of another person. much like someone making the decision to drive fast can lead to a car accident which can lead to a manslaughter verdict. and make no mistake about it, his decision making led to the death of trayvon. we can argue about how right or wrong his decisions were on a moral scale till the cows come home, but either way, the decisions he made led to unnecessary death of another person. that's criminally negligent.

Not at all. He acted within the confines of the law. Criminal negligence inherently implies that the accused wanted things to happen the way they did. Criminal negligence can't be used in a manslaughter case, they're mutually exclusive if I understand criminal negligence correctly.

EDIT:
Hmmm, now I'm getting differing definitions for criminal negligence as I look it up on multiple sources. Others say that it represents an EXTREME departure from what a rational human being would do while others say that it's more of a "I know what's going to happen, but I'll do nothing to stop it"

EDIT 2:
So, shouselaw.com refers to criminal negligence like this (for california but it should be reasonably similar)

• that the defendant acted so recklessly that he/she created a high risk of death or great bodily injury,
  
• that the act(s) demonstrated a disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences,
  and
  
• that a reasonable person in a similar situation would have known that the act(s) naturally and probably results in harm to other people.

I would say it would be incredibly hard to prove that criminal negligence by these standards even in this case.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:18 AM

[supersloth]

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Criminal negligence can't be used in a manslaughter case, they're mutually exclusive if I understand criminal negligence correctly.

do you need me to use the google machine for you or are you capable of handling this one yourself?