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.

I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.

I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.

D-USA...I want to be very clear on this. You might get into a situation where you have to draw your weapon and shoot someone in self defense. Would it be fair for you to charged "Guilty" on Manslaughter?

If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

 LordofHats wrote:

hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.

You can blame Martin for attacking Zimmerman, but you can also blame Zimmerman for chasing Martin. "Don't blame the victim" is a stupid way of looking at a lot of situations. So don't feel bad

Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.

If you were threatened, but the person that threatened you retreated only for you to follow them and attack them?

 Crimson wrote:

IronWarLeg wrote:

Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate.

I know the gun laws and the self defence laws involved. That's why I criticised those laws.

No. I don't think you do. We get it. Everyone in socialized, homogenous, European countries are better than us filthy heathen Americans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

Is anyone saying the case itself was clear cut? I think most here are saying that any rational person that followed the court case (and not the media case) would have found similarly given the evidence.

Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.

I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.

 Crimson wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.

Crimson starting to crack me up

edit
Because I caught this of his sig

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane.

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get...

The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.

Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.

Is this becoming another one of those Americans against the rest of the world gun threads?

...God I hate those threads.

 Crimson wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.

? Minority Report much?

 Jihadin wrote:

Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.

I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman

That's the part I have trouble with too. Like I said, as far as anyone not named George Zimmerman knows, he would have never actually confronted Martin. Maybe he would have simply followed him to a residence. Maybe he would have walked up to him and simply asked where he was going.

Personally, I think the involuntary manslaughter would have been a stretch too, because that would be predicated on a pretty long string or causality, with the ultimate expectation being that following a stranger in your neighborhood would result in him attacking you and you having to shoot him in a struggle.

Crimson carrying that torch forward W

edit

Personally, I think the involuntary manslaughter would have been a stretch too, because that would be predicated on a pretty long string or causality, with the ultimate expectation being that following a stranger in your neighborhood would result in him attacking you and you having to shoot him in a struggle.

I would prefer a Neighborhood Watch individual to be active in my area. Not passive sit in the car/truck and just call 911 and stays in the vehicle. Neighborhood watch is there as a deterrent. Not a false sense of security for everyone living in the area.

 Crimson wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.

Following people and questioning them is in no way a "conflict situation". If it were the aisles of my local mall would be littered with the broken bodies of pushy salespersons.

 d-usa wrote:


I am sure that some of it is also influenced by emotion for me considering the woman in Florida that got 20 years for firing a warning shot and claimed a stand your ground defense but was found guilty of attempted murder.

From what I read of her case, she left the confrontation with her husband, went to the garage, retrieved the gun from her car and then went back inside and fired. In this case, I can see why self-defense would not apply. She seems to have escalated the conflict. If you have some more in depth sources though, I would like to read them; the case hasn't received much attention.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Is this becoming another one of those Americans against the rest of the world gun threads?

...God I hate those threads.

It's 'cuz we're awesome. See Tosh:


EDIT: fixed it... had wrong quote.

 Jihadin wrote:

Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.

I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman

Zimmerman being injured is irrelevant to the manslaughter charge. What happened can fit pretty cleanly into the general definition of involuntary manslaughter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


Following people and questioning them is in no way a "conflict situation". If it were the aisles of my local mall would be littered with the broken bodies of pushy salespersons.

I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior and it's not very comfortable to look over your shoulder and see someone ominously following you with no clear reason. Zimmerman is not even a mall cop. He's some random guy who decided on a whim wearing a hoodie = guilt and that he was qualified against advisement from law enforcement to pursue a suspect on complete subjective bias.

Someone died as a result. I don't want to think of America really being so polarized over the gun debates that this is seen as perfectly acceptable. Even if it isn't against the law it should give all of us pause about whether or not that should be allowed to happen.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.

Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.

Touché. Freaking touché. Geraldo was KILLING the media for the copious yellow journalism that led to this even being brought to trial.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior.

Maybe it's just because I'm a giant pussy (though i don't think I am) but my first instinct would be to either quicken pace and get the feth out of there. Not lose the guy, hide, and then assault him.

 cincydooley wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.

Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.

Touché. Freaking touché. Geraldo was KILLING the media for the copious yellow journalism that led to this even being brought to trial.

He is?

I'd figured he'd be pushing the yellow journalism crap.... o.O

To be fair, Zimmerman was the head of their neighborhood watch. The heads of the neighborhood watch in my parents neighborhood patrol. In Cincinnati there is also a citizens on Patrol program that has helped to decrease crime in the areas it exists.

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/community-involvement/citizens-on-patrol/

But to also now, he wasnt even looking for crime at that time, he was returning from the store.

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.

Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.

Touché. Freaking touché. Geraldo was KILLING the media for the copious yellow journalism that led to this even being brought to trial.

He is?

I'd figured he'd be pushing the yellow journalism crap.... o.O

I was surprised myself. I realize FoxNews isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he and the other chick were killing the media for overly politicizing this trial. I just had to stop watching MSNBC because they had Al "Reverend Racism" Sharpton as one of their primary commentators.

OKay... this is ingenious:


Also... I just cannot keep up with my twitter feed... I'm giving up. This one is pretty funny:

So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

Its the case that people from different environments have differing mindsets on certain things I suppose. If you live in a town where say its normal for everyone to turn out for church on a Sunday you'll probably not be able to get behind the viewpoint of a person who's a stringent atheist. In this case the American's mindset is that it is their right (not just on a legal level but on a cultural one) that they should be able to use their guns to whatever degree they see fit to defend themselves. However the extent of their use, if at all, and the situation that they may be used in are of course going to viewed upon differently from someone living in a country where the national opinion is against the public carrying of firearms.

For those of us who aren't Americans your mindset can come across as being a tad unethical. I mean I can understand why people think as they do, but that's not the same as agreeing with them. That being said being this is an American dominated forum, these types of discussions, about which Americans are quite patriotic about, do tend to delve into tit for tat arguments over what winds up being an issue over national identity (ie good old "you lot are mental for carrying guns" threads).

Still, we're all of course just no good commie liberals, but its nice to acknowledge the trend. =P

 LordofHats wrote:

I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior and it's not very comfortable to look over your shoulder and see someone ominously following you with no clear reason.

Then your supposition would be wrong. Ive been there, I'd head for a safe area (in my case my nearby car), especially if I were as close to home as TM was.

Confronting them and slinging racial slurs like your heros in rap videos will end badly apparently.

It's good to see that in the United States of America, your right given to you by birth as a living creature, to protect yourself against violent aggression, is upheld and supported by our law.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Its the case that people from different environments have differing mindsets on certain things I suppose. If you live in a town where say its normal for everyone to turn out for church on a Sunday you'll probably not be able to get behind the viewpoint of a person who's a stringent atheist. In this case the American's mindset is that it is their right (not just on a legal level but on a cultural one) that they should be able to use their guns to whatever degree they see fit to defend themselves. However the extent of their use, if at all, and the situation that they may be used in are of course going to viewed upon differently from someone living in a country where the national opinion is against the public carrying of firearms.

For those of us who aren't Americans your mindset can come across as being a tad unethical. I mean I can understand why people think as they do, but that's not the same as agreeing with them. That being said being this is an American dominated forum, these types of discussions, about which Americans are quite patriotic about, do tend to delve into tit for tat arguments over what winds up being an issue over national identity (ie good old "you lot are mental for carrying guns" threads).

Still, we're all of course just no good commie liberals, but its nice to acknowledge the trend. =P

Exalted...

Can't add much more than that.

I was being a bit facetious, but I see what you're saying.

Bear in mind this hasn't ever been a gun issue in my mind. The situation could have just as easily happened with a knife.

 cincydooley wrote:
To be fair, Zimmerman was the head of their neighborhood watch. The heads of the neighborhood watch in my parents neighborhood patrol. In Cincinnati there is also a citizens on Patrol program that has helped to decrease crime in the areas it exists.

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/community-involvement/citizens-on-patrol/

Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch only under his own authority. The head of the Home Owners Association testified the HOA didn't give him permission to form a neighborhood watch (contrary to what Zimmerman told police). Likewise, the head of the Citizens on Patrol Progam testified that Zimmerman's actions are the exact opposite of what citizens are supposed to do.

People talk about evidence but they constantly throughout the story Zimmerman offers as though its complete truth even though the only thing that can be proven about it is that Martin hit him and he shot him. We don't know that Martin threw the first punch and can't. Zimmerman is a bizarre guy who did some really questionable things. Our system decided it couldn't convict him and that's all well and good but we shouldn't stop asking ourselves if what happened was okay or just blindly accept that we shouldn't think critically about what happened because it could happen again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


Then your supposition would be wrong. Ive been there, I'd head for a safe area (in my case my nearby car), especially if I were as close to home as TM was.

Confronting them and slinging racial slurs like your heros in rap videos will end badly apparently.

70 feet is a long way to run from a guy in a truck.

We have no evidence for that either (unless Jeantel is now a reliable witness) but I guess I should just take that people will accept hersay when it suits their point of view.