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.

Andrew1975 wrote:
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.

That's never your only choice.

You have a gun, so pistol whipping is an option, as is shooting.

You have hands, so punching is an option, as is strangling.

You have feet, and legs, so kicking and running are options.

You have a car, so not getting out of it is an option, as is the use of the vehicle as a weapon.

You have a brain, and are apparently intelligent, so not placing yourself in this particular situation is an option.

Mr Hyena wrote:Whats with all the racism against Whites?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Hopefully you are.

AustonT wrote:

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.

So he shot him to resolve the fist fight? Doesn't seem like that was justified, to me. It's certainly tricky territory, though.

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.

Have you not been paying attention? Go watch the above video or read about the case! Zimmerman was wrestling with Martin on the ground after Martin had already punched him in the face and broke his nose. The back of Zimmermans head was bashed and bloody and he had grass stains all over his back from the ground. The least you could do before commenting is ....well read what was reported to have happened.

This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.

Of course the story being reported is Black teen out shopping for candy, ruthlessly gunned down by racist. Never mind that Zimmerman's background seams to scream multi cultural non racist.

Andrew1975 wrote:
This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.

There are also people that seem to be willing to trust the killer, and witnesses, which is foolish.

Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

Have you not been paying attention? Go watch the above video or read about the case! Zimmerman was wrestling with Martin on the ground after Martin had already punched him in the face and broke his nose. The back of Zimmermans head was bashed and bloody and he had grass stains all over his back from the ground. The least you could do before commenting is ....well read what was reported to have happened.

This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.

'About to get his head bashed in' makes it sound like a situation where serious injury or death was a certainty; it makes it sound as if lethal force were the only and most appropriate response. From what I know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat and the result.

I have been keeping up with this thread(mildly) and some news coverage, but I *do* make a note to take obviously biased 'facts' from either side of the debate with a grain of salt.

Ronin-Sage wrote:So he shot him to resolve the fist fight? Doesn't seem like that was justified, to me. It's certainly tricky territory, though.

It IS rather tricky territory. Maybe that's why I've said more than once I think Z killed M in cold blood
I tend to think if I mounted you and began to beat you(a general you not you specifically) to death that you would probably shoot me too, but I'm rather much larger,better trained, and quite likely meaner than Trayvon Martin (or am I)

Sure, you can't take what Zimmerman said as Gospel, but most of the facts so far seam to support it. That's what investigators are for. There are plenty of people that are just completely ignoring or completely unaware of the facts or even the situation as described by Zimmerman and another witness.

Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.

From what I care to know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat, because I just want to say killing and guns are bad ok!

fixed that for you!

There are also people that seem to be willing to trust the killer, and witnesses, which is foolish.

Yes there are. I tend to trust the facts of the case that have been released so far. Now it's completely possible that Zimmerman went out of his way to cover up his crime. Occam's razor would say that you should probably trust the first story as it is backed by facts (spurious as they may be).

AustonT wrote:
I tend to think if I mounted you and began to beat you...

Depends on how much leather was involved.

Andrew1975 wrote:Sure, you can't take what Zimmerman said as Gospel, but most of the facts so far seam to support it. That's what investigators are for. There are plenty of people that are just completely ignoring or completely unaware of the facts or even the situation as described by Zimmerman and another witness.

Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.

From what I care to know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat, because I just want to say killing and guns are bad ok!

fixed that for you!

Not sure if serious.
(in regard to that last part)

Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.

In order to discuss the story, and the underlying law, you have to ask the question.

Either way, I suspect Zimmerman will be exonerated because there isn't a whole lot of evidence on which to convict him. But I also think that being raked over the coals in the fashion is entirely appropriate given how stupid his actions were.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I tend to think if I mounted you and began to beat you...

Depends on how much leather was involved.

Or if you make eye contact?

The mount?

Pfff, look up the "butt drag".

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.

In order to discuss the story, and the underlying law, you have to ask the question.

Either way, I suspect Zimmerman will be exonerated because there isn't a whole lot of evidence on which to convict him. But I also think that being raked over the coals in the fashion is entirely appropriate given how stupid his actions were.

The guys background says that he is a do gooder, I mean the guy donates time to charity and helps underprivileged children, which yes in dogma vision is massively stupid because selflessness is stupid. I just think the guy is probably being treated harshly by a segment of society that is never at responsible for anything that happens to them. Sure he's a sucker, but he doesn't deserve this either.

dogma wrote:The mount?

Pfff, look up the "butt drag".

I'm familiar...we used to call it checking the oil.

AustonT wrote:
I'm familiar...we used to call it checking the oil.

Yeah, I heard that at some tournaments out West.

OT, but I agree with the sentiment in that article, wrestling has always been a little gay.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The guys background says that he is a do gooder, I mean the guy donates time to charity and helps underprivileged children, which yes in dogma vision is massively stupid because selflessness is stupid.

It is when being selfless massively increases the likelihood that you will be involved in a violent confrontation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I just think the guy is probably being treated harshly by a segment of society that is never at responsible for anything that happens to them. Sure he's a sucker, but he doesn't deserve this either.

And he's being defended by people that often want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:

If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

And he's being defended by people that often want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Shouldn't that be the standard? That you should be responsible for your actions? Zimmerman is being held responsible for his actions justified or not he will be held responsible for them.

Explain that last one to me, Dog.

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

biccat wrote:Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:

If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.

2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).

I'll probably get my CCW license within the year and eventually carry my Glock 19(although I'm open to an XDM 3.8 sub-compact :p), so this debate is certainly relevant. That said, It will be my responsibility to ensure that use of my weapon is justified and I maintain a reasonable state and cool head. I don't see justification existing for Zimmerman's actions(but I see where the logic of his defense comes from).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

Read the timeline and look at the maps that have been linked to? Watch the video? It is VERY possible Martin made it to the house he was staying at and went back after Zimmerman. If that is the case (as it appears to be) your 'following in a dark area' theory (and that is all it is because known evidence does not support it) goes out the window.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Explain that last one to me, Dog.

Many people defending Zimmerman are of the "tough on crime" ilk, specifically those that are claiming the charges are baseless or wrong. They feel he should not be affected by the legal system if he killed a person under legitimate threat. This position is often defended by claiming that people should be responsible for their own actions, which is something I agree with. However, the question moves further to an issue of sensibility. Broadly, Zimmerman is being held responsible for shooting Trayvon (don't recall last name), whether he did so legitimately or not is separate, but under our system of justice doing controversial things, essentially, costs money and time.

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

If someone is following you do you just go and attack them? Or do you maybe threaten them and tell them to go away. Again we don't really know what happened but we have a guy whose history is not of a race hater, but actually a equal opportunity helper, and a kid who in the past had just randomly punched strangers.

1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.

Right, you don't see ay evidence, what evidence so you need though. You have a bloody and beaten Zimmerman, I'm not really sure what else you need. What evidence do you have to refute his story? I'm sure I'm just blaming the victim though.....wait.....which one is the victim at this point?

2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).

Yes there is evidence, did you read the police report or the witness statement. Now this is not 100% concrete evidence.....but what is?

It may turn out that it was a cover-up, but I just can't believe the amount of people that are just assuming he is guilty and damning him. Most would probably no matter what the evidence was anyway.

I'm not saying the charges are baseless, or that no investigation should be done, nobody gets a free pass. However if detectives confirm the story within a reasonable doubt I don't see why this has to go to trial.

I'll be honest the british media portrayed this as a cut and shut case: 'Nasty white gun-nut kills nice African American boy in cold blood'.

I didnt know there may be more to it.

Perkustin wrote:I'll be honest the british media portrayed this as a cut and shut case: 'Nasty white gun-nut kills nice African American boy in cold blood'.

I didnt know there may be more to it.

:|

Perkustin wrote:I'll be honest the british media portrayed this as a cut and shut case: 'Nasty white gun-nut kills nice African American boy in cold blood'.

I didnt know there may be more to it.

Sounds about right! That's how most of the media have covered it and almost no one mentions that Zimmerman showed signs of being beaten pretty bad. Sure Zimmerman sounds like the kind of guy I would beat up, you know when he was a kid he was the one that reminded the teacher to give out homework and such. Still, lets not crucify him until we need to shall we.

Dont forget about the skittles!

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dont forget about the skittles!

Kiss the sky, and taste the melon-fething rainbow.

dogma wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dont forget about the skittles!

Kiss the sky, and taste the melon-fething rainbow.

Don't you mean taste the melanin fething rainbow?