Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?

I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.

Like PotUS?

Really that kind of excuse is a bit outdated. They need to find another one.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

dogma wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?

I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.

Like PotUS?

Really that kind of excuse is a bit outdated. They need to find another one.

It is almost as outdated as the notion that because one person, or small group, does well that it must mean that a social problem suddenly no longer exists.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Like PotUS?

Really that kind of excuse is a bit outdated. They need to find another one.

You know, I never thought of it like that, but really MLK didn't need to give that speech about the Mountaintop because, you know, Uhura.

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
November 5, 2008 | ISSUE 44•45
WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

Ahtman wrote:It is almost as outdated as the notion that because one person, or small group, does well that it must mean that a social problem suddenly no longer exists.

That's true. Because if you think about it, only 42 old rich white guys have actually managed to become president. That doesn't mean that we, as a society, still don't have a problem with old rich white guys.

DrimGark wrote:On the topic of the coverage this case has received:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/MediaDishonestyAndRaceHustlers.htm

Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.

The purpose of laws is to server the interests of society.

It's usual for some test cases to follow the introduction of a new law in order to establish the limits and merits of the Act as written. This case seems like such a case.

Given the highly politicised and emotional subject matter -- white police support person shoots black teenager -- it's hardly surprising that there should be so much political interest.

That is part of the legal process.

The mobs judging a man without the facts (or the medias distortion of them) shouldn't be. Zimmerman has already been tried and sentenced to death.

d-usa wrote:The actual affidavit, if anybody wants to read it.

Back to this.

Stand your ground law is being over simplified here, there are provisions and it is always open to legal review if the situation falls in a grey area.
This case, like any other, you are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors... Central Florida’s crime rate is astronomical, and if someone decides to take away your right to safety then they have forfeit their own. If Zimmerman made the wrong call, which nobody at this point really knows, then he will be punished. If Zimmerman made the right call then everyone will throw a fit and claim the laws are wrong and he is a racist… but he will get to walk, as he should.
Here is a true example. I live in Orlando and the gas station close to my house was getting robbed by a man with a gun about 3 years ago... a customer with a concealed permit then pulled his gun and killed the robber, stopping him from taking any money or an innocent life. The robber decided to threaten to end others lives, and by doing so knew the risk he was taking. Most cases are not as foggy as Zimmermans.
Threaten my safety and ill kill you too, its that simple.

I couldnt pull the imbed video out of this.

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/04/16/front-sights-monday-blog-zimmerman-versus-martin/

Tried to embed the video from above post

http://fsblog.s3.amazonaws.com/zimmerman.mp4

And of obvious note, Frontsight is gonna have a pro-gun slant to anything they do or post.

Jake

SlaveToDorkness wrote:The mobs judging a man without the facts (or the medias distortion of them) shouldn't be. Zimmerman has already been tried and sentenced to death.

Although regrettable I don't think there is anything to be done about that now.

It would have been better if the police had charged Zimmerman early on, rather than let the case fester for over a month.

That said, the USA lacks the sub judice law of the UK so speculation might have continued anyway.

Perhaps the best thing is to put Zimmerman on trial, hope that he is found innocent and, if necessary, the state should pay for him to be rehoused somewhere under the same kind of arrangements as the witness protection programme.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bear in mind there are mobs on both sides.

KingCracker wrote:No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Perhaps the best thing is to put Zimmerman on trial, hope that he is found innocent and, if necessary, the state should pay for him to be rehoused somewhere under the same kind of arrangements as the witness protection programme.

He should also be able to sue the police and the media for a hefty sum of money.

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Thats easy to say when you have a violent individual pretty much on top of you, or an armed assailant.

DIDM wrote:

KingCracker wrote:No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

I am equally glad you are not involved in the legal process either.

biccat wrote:
That's true. Because if you think about it, only 42 old rich white guys have actually managed to become president. That doesn't mean that we, as a society, still don't have a problem with old rich white guys.

Of course, as old rich, white guys clearly have a rough lot in life. All that money is a difficult burden to bear after having lived long enough to require a hip replacement.

Whats with all the racism against Whites?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:The mobs judging a man without the facts (or the medias distortion of them) shouldn't be. Zimmerman has already been tried and sentenced to death.

Conversely, many have already judged his actions to be justifiable.

What's this? Most people make judgments without sufficient information regarding most things? Revelation!

So who wants to bet that if the facts of the case exonerate Zimmerman you will never hear an apology from Al Sharpton. This guy is a complete douche as always!

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Sorry I can only see this playing out as a Python skit.

"Excuse me old boy, I was wondering if you could refrain from the continued slamming of my head into the ground. You see, you are making it hard for me to aim at any none vital areas. Be a chap and just let me wing your toe here if you would and we can call it a day! Right right!"

"Core, well of course kind sir. That's right considerate of you, seeing as I was intending to bash your skull in. I appreciate the effort, seeing as you could have shot me in me vitals! I'd be happy to step back. Could you just wing me pinky toe then! I don't think I much need it! Have some skittles?"

Thank God he didn't have a pointed stick or some raspberries, we might have gotten to see a tiger!

dogma wrote:What's this? Most people make judgments without sufficient information regarding most things? Revelation!

Down with the presumption of innocence! It lets too many scapegoats get away without paying their debt to society!

biccat wrote:
Down with the presumption of innocence! It lets too many scapegoats get away without paying their debt to society!

Clearly the court of public opinion is exactly like the court of law, and they should be regarded in exactly the same fashion.

Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.

It's political and social hornet's nests like this that almost make me glad to live in the middle of nowhere.

Ronin-Sage wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

"Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens."

Generally speaking of course, it varies state by state.

Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Why would it? If your only choice is between getting your skull bashed in and shooting the assailant that is in turn bashing your skull in, where do you see the excessive force. If anything isn't expressive force being used by the guy attacking someone for keeping an eye on him?

What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.

Ronin-Sage wrote:What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.

thats for the jury to work out, but if its not true zimmerman is in trouble.

From floridas concealed weapon FAQ.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
"Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force. "

Ronin-Sage wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?

Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.

Your understanding would be incorrect

I'll just leave this here in case anyone is interested.