Protecting the truly important stuff
-
I liked this thread better when it was about security guards checking to see if you flushed.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I liked this thread better when it was about security guards checking to see if you flushed.
Gross! What kind of sickos would talk about that?
-
@Sutherlands said:
@joe.edwards said:
I liked this thread better when it was about security guards checking to see if you flushed.
Gross! What kind of sickos would talk about that?Probably git users.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Talking to someone about what they're doing in your neighborhood is not illegal, and should not be, and I would encourage it from anyone in my neighborhood. I'd much prefer that to someone calling the police if they don't recognize someone.
Me too. But once you call the police, you have to do what they advise. Zimmerman placed the call, and then ignored their advice.
@Sutherlands said:
Even if GZ had swung first, bashing someone's head into the ground is not self-defense at that point, and would have been assault even if 1) GZ swung first and 2) TM was still alive.
According to everything that's been said since this happened, under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, if GZ swung first and TM felt his life was in danger, TM would be legally justified in doing whatever it took to save his own life. So suppose that's what happened? Suppose GZ swung, hit TM, then pulled his gun and TM fought back hard?
Even without "Stand Your Ground", some states would still call what you described self-defense. My karate instructor here in Massachusetts has taught us the legal difference between "assault" (giving someone reason to believe you intend to harm them) and "battery" (making physical contact with them in a way that is intended to be harmful). According to him, we are justified in defending ourselves once battery has occurred, even if it's a single punch, and we can continue our defense until we feel the assailant is no longer a threat. In Massachusetts, that does not including killing the attacker (so not as strong as "Stand Your Ground"), but even so, if I had to bash a gun-wielding attacker's head on the sidewalk to get him to drop his gun to save my life, I imagine I would.I don't know what the laws are like anywhere else.
@Sutherlands said:
Let me rephrase that
@NOT RobFreundlich said:
So this wasn't just a girl walking through a parking lot. This was a person walking through a deserted parking lot when there is little light and nobody nearby. Either she was stupid and got raped by the dangerous person and ended up shooting him (in which case she's part responsible because she should have been smarter) or she was looking to be raped and found a way (in which case she's completely responsible).
Yeah, that sounds very similar.
Not quite. A better rephrase would be this:
@NOT RobFreundlich said:
So this wasn't just a girl walking through a parking lot. This was a person walking through a parking lot when there is little light and she knows there's probably somebody dangerous in the parking lot and the police have told her to stay out of the parking lot until they can check it out. Either she was stupid and got raped by the dangerous person and ended up shooting him (in which case she's part responsible because she should have been smarter) or she was looking to be shoot someone and found a way (in which case she's completely responsible).
The difference between your rephrase and mine is that in yours, she had no reason to believe she was doing anything specifically dangerous, where in mine (and the case we're discussing) she knew there was a specific danger.
Here's an analogy that's less emotionally charged.
I'm an OK swimmer. If I go swimming in my backyard pool with a friend, and I somehow slip, knock myself on the head, and drown before my friend can help me, that sucks, but it's not my fault. Yes, swimming is dangerous, but there's no specific danger, and I shouldn't reasonably have expected anything bad to happen.
However, if my friend and I go swimming in a fast-moving rocky river with "DANGER No Swimming" signs posted, and there's a thunderstorm raging, and one of us drowns, well, fucking duh for us. Either we were stupid and should have been smarter or we intentionally took the risk and assumed responsibility for whatever happened.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
@joe.edwards said:
I liked this thread better when it was about security guards checking to see if you flushed.
Gross! What kind of sickos would talk about that?Probably git users.
@rakeyblat said:
Git users are completely responsible for their own problems.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
Me too. But once you call the police, you have to do what they advise. Zimmerman placed the call, and then ignored their advice.
100% not true. For one, the dispatcher gave a suggestion, not dictated what to do. I believe this is to limit liability. Second, unless you're being detained, under arrest, or in their way of doing an actual job, you pretty much don't have to do anything the police tell you to do. And this is all predicated on the idea that he DIDN'T do what they told him. Which he did.@RobFreundlich said:
Even without "Stand Your Ground", some states would still call what you described self-defense. My karate instructor here in Massachusetts has taught us the legal difference between "assault" (giving someone reason to believe you intend to harm them) and "battery" (making physical contact with them in a way that is intended to be harmful). According to him, we are justified in defending ourselves once battery has occurred, even if it's a single punch, and we can continue our defense until we feel the assailant is no longer a threat. In Massachusetts, that does not including killing the attacker (so not as strong as "Stand Your Ground"), but even so, if I had to bash a gun-wielding attacker's head on the sidewalk to get him to drop his gun to save my life, I imagine I would.
First, "Stand Your Ground" does not give you license to kill an attacker. All it says is that you don't have to retreat from somewhere that you have the legal right to be before you can use force to defend yourself. In what you describe "we can continue our defense until we feel the assailant is no longer a threat," you're going to try and claim that GZ represented a threat to TM when TM was straddling him and pounding his head into the ground? And you presume that TM knew that GZ had a gun. He didn't. I don't know how you imagine a conflict going, but if anyone is ever in the situation where they're pounding the other person's head into the ground, they have won. There's also no way you could do that if they had a gun you were trying to control.I don't know what the laws are like anywhere else.
@RobFreundlich said:
However, if my friend and I go swimming in a fast-moving rocky river with "DANGER No Swimming" signs posted, and there's a thunderstorm raging, and one of us drowns, well, fucking duh for us. Either we were stupid and should have been smarter or we intentionally took the risk and assumed responsibility for whatever happened.
This is not at all the same, considering there is only one actor at play. But if it did apply, it would be to TM, since he took an action (attacking someone) that was risky and lead to his death.Can you name a single thing that GZ did that was illegal?
-
@RobFreundlich said:
and then ignored their advice.
I just want to call this out specifically again... this is absolutely not true, and you have no reason to believe it's true. This is just something you made up in order to claim that an injustice happened.
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm kinda surprised that no one (that I have seen) has likened this to rape victims.
RobFreundlich's the kind of piece of shit who would accuse a woman of dressing too provocatively and getting herself raped.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
If he'd truly been a member of Neighborhood Watch, he'd have known to stay in his car (or to go right back to it after seeing which way Martin ran)
So the Neighborhood Watch if fucking useless. Good to know.
@RobFreundlich said:
and no matter what anyone thinks about "Stand Your Ground", guns, possible racism, possible profiling, possible homophobic thuggery, or any of the other issues that have come up during this case, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.
Which would be a shame. Martin probably would have gone on to kill somebody. Or commit horrible abuse. He clearly was a violent, dangerous lunatic. And now the world's a better place.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
In Massachusetts, that does not including killing the attacker (so not as strong as "Stand Your Ground")
I don't know of any jurisdiction that would let you kill an attacker after he'd been neutralized. That's not "Stand Your Ground". "Stand Your Ground" simply means you don't have an obligation to flee. That means if you have credible reason to feel your life is threatened, you can kill the assailant, but only if he continues to be a threat.
Since Massachusetts is run by liberal shitheads, it takes things further and criminalizes people who kill assailants disproportionately. What that means practically is that if someone breaks into your house and comes at you with a knife trying to kill you, you can get in trouble by shooting him to death. Not all prosecutors or police will pursue such a case, but it has happened.
But it's clear you don't understand how the law works. There was nothing illegal about what Zimmerman did. You can be a whiny little douchebag crybaby about it, but that doesn't change the law.
@RobFreundlich said:
However, if my friend and I go swimming in a fast-moving rocky river with "DANGER No Swimming" signs posted, and there's a thunderstorm raging, and one of us drowns, well, fucking duh for us. Either we were stupid and should have been smarter or we intentionally took the risk and assumed responsibility for whatever happened.
Goddammit you are stupid. In a case where somebody else is acting criminally, all responsibility rests with him. How do you not understand this?
-
@Sutherlands said:
First, "Stand Your Ground" does not give you license to kill an attacker. All it says is that you don't have to retreat from somewhere that you have the legal right to be before you can use force to defend yourself.
According to CFIF.org, it says that you can use force including deadly force.
@Sutherlands said:
In what you describe "we can continue our defense until we feel the assailant is no longer a threat," you're going to try and claim that GZ represented a threat to TM when TM was straddling him and pounding his head into the ground?
No, that's not what I am claiming at all. I'm claiming that it is possible that GZ followed and attacked TM and that TM "met force with force" (to quote the CFIF site), leading to the situation where TM was beating GZ's head on the ground.
@Sutherlands said:
And you presume that TM knew that GZ had a gun. He didn't.
No, I presume that TM might have known that GZ had a gun. It is possible that GZ went looking for TM, found him, showed him the gun and said something threatening, at which point TM responded with force. I am not claiming it absolutely happened that way, but do you have any proof that it didn't?
@Sutherlands said:
This is not at all the same, considering there is only one actor at play. But if it did apply, it would be to TM, since he took an action (attacking someone) that was risky and lead to his death.
Can you name a single thing that GZ did that was illegal?
No, I cannot prove that GZ did anything illegal, but then again, I have never claimed that he did. I've been saying GZ did something either stupid or ill-intentioned, and therefore has moral and ethical responsibility. I may not have been clear about that before, but please note that whenever I've accused him of anything, it's always been "stupidity OR ill intent", never just ill intent. Ill intent might imply legal responsibility, but stupidity doesn't, or at least shouldn't.
By the way, just as I cannot prove he did anything illegal, you cannot prove that he didn't.
Unfortunately, responsibility and legality are not always the same concept. Even some of the jurors in this case have said that they think GZ shouldn't have gotten out of the car, and they're the ones who found him guilty. If that's not a clear statement about the difference between responsibility and legal culpability, I don't know what is.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@RobFreundlich said:
and then ignored their advice.
I just want to call this out specifically again... this is absolutely not true, and you have no reason to believe it's true. This is just something you made up in order to claim that an injustice happened.The police dispatcher told hiim not to follow TM, and then he followed him anyway AFTER SAYING "OK" to the dispatcher. How is that not ignoring their advice?
-
@Sutherlands said:
Second, unless you're being detained, under arrest, or in their way of doing an actual job, you pretty much don't have to do anything the police tell you to do.
That's not really true. As long as the order is reasonable and lawful, you have to obey. If a police officer had said "Stay in your car" because he thought there was a reasonable chance of violence, that's an order you are obliged to obey.
@Sutherlands said:
This is not at all the same, considering there is only one actor at play. But if it did apply, it would be to TM, since he took an action (attacking someone) that was risky and lead to his death.
Exactly. Only a sick son of a bitch would see somebody attacking someone else and assume the person who was attacked was at fault.
@Sutherlands said:
Can you name a single thing that GZ did that was illegal?
No, he can't. Nothing he did was illegal. It was all incredibly cut-and-dry according to the law. In fact, the prosecutor should be fired for incompetence and harassing citizens. There was no case at all.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
No, that's not what I am claiming at all. I'm claiming that it is possible that GZ followed and attacked TM and that TM "met force with force" (to quote the CFIF site), leading to the situation where TM was beating GZ's head on the ground.
Yes, and it's possible that 9/11 was an inside job and Islam really is the religion of peace. You need to stop listening so credibly to your shoulder aliens.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Goddammit you are stupid. In a case where somebody else is acting criminally, all responsibility rests with him. How do you not understand this?
That's not how it works. For example, if Driver A is driving without a license (acting criminally) but otherwise obeying the rules of the road and Driver B run a red light and hit him, A doesn't automatically assume all responsibility for the accident. Responsibility may be shared, but it's more likely that A's criminal action would be ruled irrelevant as to the cause of the accident. If we take it further and at the hospital, the surgeon responsible for fixing his broken ribs fucks up royally and ends up killing him with negligence, A sure as fuck doesn't assume responsibility for his own death.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
According to CFIF.org, it says that you can use force including deadly force.
Yes, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. You can't incapacitate and attacker and then execute him. Jesus fuck, do you understand the first fucking thing about self-defense law?
@RobFreundlich said:
leading to the situation where TM was beating GZ's head on the ground.
So if I understand your reasoning, innocent civilians shouldn't be allowed to stand their ground, but criminal assailants should be. Wow. You are one psychotic asshole.
@RobFreundlich said:
I am not claiming it absolutely happened that way, but do you have any proof that it didn't?
So in your opinion it's the role of the law to convict people based on completely made up stories? "Hey, I think Rob Freundlich might have conspired with al Qaeda during 9/11! Can you prove he didn't?"
That's not how the law works, you dipshit. The law only works with facts. If something can't be proven, it's not admissible. Wild speculation is pointless, dangerous and flat-out insane. That's not how the fucking law works. All you have is the evidence of what happened. You're not allowed to concoct crimes that there is no evidence of and try to use them to convict someone, you fucking psycho.
@RobFreundlich said:
By the way, just as I cannot prove he did anything illegal, you cannot prove that he didn't.
Innocent until proven guilty, you fucking fascist asshole
-
@Snooder said:
That's not how it works. For example, if Driver A is driving without a license (acting criminally) but otherwise obeying the rules of the road and Driver B run a red light and hit him, A doesn't automatically assume all responsibility for the accident. Responsibility may be shared, but it's more likely that A's criminal action would be ruled irrelevant as to the cause of the accident. If we take it further and at the hospital, the surgeon responsible for fixing his broken ribs fucks up royally and ends up killing him with negligence, A sure as fuck doesn't assume responsibility for his own death.
First off, did I say legal responsibility? No I did not, you idiot.
Two: what does any of that have to do with a man attacking another innocent man? Why would you ever assign blame to Person B? It's fucking insane.
-
Just to be clear:
If someone enters your house uninvited and threatens to kill you/someone else, you have every right to shoot them.
If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
If a homeless person is sleeping on your couch when you get home, but they don't have weapons, you should call the police. Shooting them would/should be illegal as they are not an active threat.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
According to CFIF.org, it says that you can use force including deadly force.
" if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." That's a pretty important part you left out.I don't know of a single state that wouldn't allow you to kill an attacker in GZ's situation, but would in TM's situation. The only difference between states is whether you have a duty to retreat. If you don't have the capability to retreat, then it's a moo point.@RobFreundlich said:
I'm claiming that it is possible that GZ followed and attacked TM and that TM "met force with force" (to quote the CFIF site), leading to the situation where TM was beating GZ's head on the ground.
And TM would have been guilty of battery in that case, regardless, because he used an inappropriate amount of force.
@RobFreundlich said:
No, I presume that TM might have known that GZ had a gun. It is possible that GZ went looking for TM, found him, showed him the gun and said something threatening, at which point TM responded with force. I am not claiming it absolutely happened that way, but do you have any proof that it didn't?
Well, there's the fact that he didn't say anything about it to the person he was talking on the phone with. Then there's the fact that he was at home and decided to go back out.@RobFreundlich said:
No, I cannot prove that GZ did anything illegal, but then again, I have never claimed that he did. I've been saying GZ did something either stupid or ill-intentioned, and therefore has moral and ethical responsibility. I may not have been clear about that before, but please note that whenever I've accused him of anything, it's always been "stupidity OR ill intent", never just ill intent. Ill intent might imply legal responsibility, but stupidity doesn't, or at least shouldn't.
I don't think asking someone what they're doing when they resemble someone who has been breaking into houses is at all stupid.
@RobFreundlich said:
By the way, just as I cannot prove he did anything illegal, you cannot prove that he didn't.
This is stupid. GZ is in fear for his life and there are people rioting and attacking people because of stupid crap that you're saying. GZ had no responsibility in the death of TM. He did nothing illegal. He did nothing immoral.@RobFreundlich said:
@Sutherlands said:
@RobFreundlich said:
The police dispatcher told hiim not to follow TM, and then he followed him anyway AFTER SAYING "OK" to the dispatcher. How is that not ignoring their advice?and then ignored their advice.
I just want to call this out specifically again... this is absolutely not true, and you have no reason to believe it's true. This is just something you made up in order to claim that an injustice happened.BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KEEP FOLLOWING HIM.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Sutherlands said:
There are a few other cases that I didn't state, sure. My point being, 1) in this case, he had absolutely no reason that he would have had to listen to the dispatcher, and 2) just because someone says it doesn't make it true. Watch any clip on youtube where someone is stopped for legally open-carrying, or legally recording.Second, unless you're being detained, under arrest, or in their way of doing an actual job, you pretty much don't have to do anything the police tell you to do.
That's not really true. As long as the order is reasonable and lawful, you have to obey. If a police officer had said "Stay in your car" because he thought there was a reasonable chance of violence, that's an order you are obliged to obey.
-
@Ben L. said:
If someone enters your house uninvited and threatens to kill you/someone else, you have every right to shoot them.
Sometimes.@Ben L. said:If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them. And if a dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you can follow them if you want.Once again, you're an idiot.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So in your opinion it's the role of the law to convict people based on completely made up stories? "Hey, I think Rob Freundlich might have conspired with al Qaeda during 9/11! Can you prove he didn't?"
I can't. And because I'm the same skin-color as morbius, I will riot until Rob is behind bars.
-
@Ben L. said:
If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
Goddammit, that's not what happened. The dispatcher "suggested" he not follow. And he was battered terribly by Martin before he shot. He clearly had a legal right to respond with lethal force.
-
@Sutherlands said:
So Zimmerman was wrong?@Sutherlands said:@Ben L. said:
If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them.And if a dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you can follow them if you want.
So Zimmerman was right?@Sutherlands said:Once again, you're an idiot.
Hey, I'm not the one who's rambling incoherently.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@morbiuswilters said:
So in your opinion it's the role of the law to convict people based on completely made up stories? "Hey, I think Rob Freundlich might have conspired with al Qaeda during 9/11! Can you prove he didn't?"
I can't. And because I'm the same skin-color as morbius, I will riot until Rob is behind bars.Are people rioting over this? Jesus Christ, what a bunch of fucking idiots.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@RobFreundlich said:
No, I cannot prove that GZ did anything illegal, but then again, I have never claimed that he did. I've been saying GZ did something either stupid or ill-intentioned, and therefore has moral and ethical responsibility. I may not have been clear about that before, but please note that whenever I've accused him of anything, it's always been "stupidity OR ill intent", never just ill intent. Ill intent might imply legal responsibility, but stupidity doesn't, or at least shouldn't.
I don't think asking someone what they're doing when they resemble someone who has been breaking into houses is at all stupid.
Therefore, it's legal to shoot all black people?wat
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
You're so incomprehendably dense. I just don't get it.If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them.GZ was not chasing TM when TM was shot. TM was beating him senseless. Had TM been running away, even after beating GZ, GZ could not have shot him, because the threat of injury was gone.
-
@Ben L. said:
Therefore, it's legal to shoot all black people?
Where do you get your sense of logic?wat
-
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
So Zimmerman was wrong?@Sutherlands said:@Ben L. said:
If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them.And if a dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you can follow them if you want.
So Zimmerman was right?@Sutherlands said:Once again, you're an idiot.
Hey, I'm not the one who's rambling incoherently.Dude, you're grossly misrepresenting the truth and you fucking know it. You do have a legal right to walk the streets of your own neighborhood, or ask someone what they're doing there. And if that person attacks you and you feel your life is reasonably in danger, you have a right to respond with deadly force. It's simple. Seriously, this wasn't a legally tricky case, whatever you morons might think.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
Therefore, it's legal to shoot all black people?
Where do you get your sense of logic?wat
Ben can come up with some really dumb shit when he's confronted with facts that don't conform to his prejudices. See: Go.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
So Zimmerman was wrong?@Sutherlands said:@Ben L. said:
If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them.And if a dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you can follow them if you want.
So Zimmerman was right?@Sutherlands said:Once again, you're an idiot.
Hey, I'm not the one who's rambling incoherently.Dude, you're grossly misrepresenting the truth and you fucking know it. You do have a legal right to walk the streets of your own neighborhood, or ask someone what they're doing there. And if that person attacks you and you feel your life is reasonably in danger, you have a right to respond with deadly force. It's simple. Seriously, this wasn't a legally tricky case, whatever you morons might think.
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
If you're a pig, you'll only have time for one-fifth of your orgasm.
-
@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Yeah, let's get all of our information from comedy shows!
Jesus Christ, you do realize it's a comedy show, right? That it deliberately misrepresents reality for laughs? Please tell me you're not so retarded you don't understand that..
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
@Ben L. said:
You're so incomprehendably dense. I just don't get it.If the 911 dispatcher tells you you shouldn't follow someone, you don't have a right to chase them and shoot them.
You almost NEVER have the right to chase someone and shoot them.GZ was not chasing TM when TM was shot. TM was beating him senseless. Had TM been running away, even after beating GZ, GZ could not have shot him, because the threat of injury was gone.
Yep, sounds like he's being beaten senseless.Actually, it sounds like SOMEONE IS CHASING A TEENAGER AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO.
-
@Ben L. said:
I'll let John Oliver take over.
You understand that pretty much everything that the media has said about this case is BS, and that includes this segment? No? *sigh*4:30 into this clip and there are actually no facts in this segment that are NOT misrepresented or taken out of context.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
That's not how it works. For example, if Driver A is driving without a license (acting criminally) but otherwise obeying the rules of the road and Driver B run a red light and hit him, A doesn't automatically assume all responsibility for the accident. Responsibility may be shared, but it's more likely that A's criminal action would be ruled irrelevant as to the cause of the accident. If we take it further and at the hospital, the surgeon responsible for fixing his broken ribs fucks up royally and ends up killing him with negligence, A sure as fuck doesn't assume responsibility for his own death.
First off, did I say legal responsibility? No I did not, you idiot.
Two: what does any of that have to do with a man attacking another innocent man? Why would you ever assign blame to Person B? It's fucking insane.
You'd assign blame to Person B if Person B did something that warrants getting hit. For example, if Person A is going about their business when Person B walks up and grabs his dick, Person A is pretty justified is taking a swing. Same if Person B walked up and starts calling Person A something offensive. Same if Person B comes up and pushes Person A.
Which doesn't have anything to do with what you said either. What you said was "someone acting criminally takes all responsibility for shit that happens." And that ain't true. The criminal can still be the victim of someone else's fuckup.That said, I'm not making any judgement about the Zimmerman thing. I haven't paid attention to the trial, and really I don't give a fuck either way. Zimmerman was dumb (we know this because he shot a kid who wasn't actually robbing anyone), Martin was probably dumb, and shit happened.
-
@Ben L. said:
Yep, sounds like he's being beaten senseless.
You really are stupid. Like an unbelievably stupid boy. Are you seriously claiming that he was not having his head slammed into the pavement when TM was shot?Actually, it sounds like SOMEONE IS CHASING A TEENAGER AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO.
-
@Snooder said:
Zimmerman was dumb (we know this because he shot a kid who wasn't actually robbing anyone),
He didn't shoot him because he thought he was robbing someone. He shot him BECAUSE HE WAS GETTING HIS HEAD SLAMMED INTO THE CONCRETE.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Yeah, let's get all of our information from comedy shows!
Jesus Christ, you do realize it's a comedy show, right? That it deliberately misrepresents reality for laughs? Please tell me you're not so retarded you don't understand that..
So let me get this straight.
I'm retarded for enjoying a comedy show and linking to a video YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WATCH.
Apparently.
Here's an article in a reputable* newspaper. I'll give you a hint: Only one of the two links in this post contains misinformation.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
At the end of that call, he is telling the cops where he'll meet him. He's setting up a meeting point. He's not chasing anyone. I can't fathom how devoid of critical thinking you are.Yep, sounds like he's being beaten senseless.
You really are stupid. Like an unbelievably stupid boy. Are you seriously claiming that he was not having his head slammed into the pavement when TM was shot?Actually, it sounds like SOMEONE IS CHASING A TEENAGER AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
Okay, please tell me where in that audio recording he was having his head slammed into the pavement.Yep, sounds like he's being beaten senseless.
You really are stupid. Like an unbelievably stupid boy. Are you seriously claiming that he was not having his head slammed into the pavement when TM was shot?Actually, it sounds like SOMEONE IS CHASING A TEENAGER AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO.
Oh right he wasn't. He was chasing a person he described as "a black man". After being told not to follow him.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
No I'm pretty sure they both do. And you're not retarded for enjoying a comedy show. You're retarded for trusting that they're giving you real information and not being willing to change your thoughts when confronted with facts.@Ben L. said:
Since I'm incapable of explaining this to you, I'll let John Oliver take over.
Yeah, let's get all of our information from comedy shows!
Jesus Christ, you do realize it's a comedy show, right? That it deliberately misrepresents reality for laughs? Please tell me you're not so retarded you don't understand that..
So let me get this straight.
I'm retarded for enjoying a comedy show and linking to a video YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WATCH.
Apparently.
Here's an article in a reputable* newspaper. I'll give you a hint: Only one of the two links in this post contains misinformation.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
I know you have problems with the time continuum, but he was chasing him BEFORE being told not to follow him. And he described him as a black man WHEN THE DISPATCHER ASKED WHAT RACE HE WAS.@Ben L. said:
Okay, please tell me where in that audio recording he was having his head slammed into the pavement.Yep, sounds like he's being beaten senseless.
You really are stupid. Like an unbelievably stupid boy. Are you seriously claiming that he was not having his head slammed into the pavement when TM was shot?Actually, it sounds like SOMEONE IS CHASING A TEENAGER AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO.
Oh right he wasn't. He was chasing a person he described as "a black man". After being told not to follow him.
Also, I never said he was having his head slammed into the pavement during that recording. You provided that recording as some sort of evidence that TM wasn't beating GZ when he was shot.
-
@Snooder said:
You'd assign blame to Person B if Person B did something that warrants getting hit. For example, if Person A is going about their business when Person B walks up and grabs his dick, Person A is pretty justified is taking a swing. Same if Person B walked up and starts calling Person A something offensive. Same if Person B comes up and pushes Person A.
Yeah, that doesn't make someone innocent, now does it?
@Snooder said:
The criminal can still be the victim of someone else's fuckup.
Ok, so what the fuck are you talking about? Who fucked up here? Sounds like Zimmerman was completely within his rights and the law, was brutally attacked, and responded with lethal force. End of story.
@Snooder said:
we know this because he shot a kid who wasn't actually robbing anyone
He was attacked. What the fuck is wrong with you people? How do you not understand this?? If I came up and started beating the holy-living-shit out of you, it would be pretty ridiculous for me to complain when you shot me, right?
-
@Sutherlands said:
I know you have problems with the time continuum, but he was chasing him BEFORE being told not to follow him. And he described him as a black man WHEN THE DISPATCHER ASKED WHAT RACE HE WAS.
I really hope somebody attacks Ben and beats the shit out of him. I mean, to within an inch of his life, maybe beyond. Because then I'm going to have a fucking field day. "Why did were you there? Why weren't you not there? If you hadn't been there, you wouldn't have been attacked. This is clearly YOUR fault. What race was he? Chinese? Oh, so you noticed his race, huh? You racist asshole."
It's really fucking sad and sick that pieces of shit like Ben can attack the victim. Maybe if his mom was raped and people started accusing her of instigating the rape he might have more compassion for actual victims. Until then, he's a hate-spewing little asshole.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
I'll let John Oliver take over.
You understand that pretty much everything that the media has said about this case is BS, and that includes this segment? No? sigh4:30 into this clip and there are actually no facts in this segment that are NOT misrepresented or taken out of context.
Okay, here's a transcription of the facts that are in the video. Tell me which ones are misrepresented or taken out of context:0:10-0:15 "We were chomping at the bit to get back to work at this comedy new show."
0:15-0:20 "This feeling lasted until about 10 PM on Saturday night."
0:20-0:25 "We the jury find George Zimmerman not guilty."
0:30-0:35 "So he's innocent?"
0:35-0:45 "'Wait: what? How could you possibly… You've got to be kid… There is no way… I can't… Oh my god.' [is what] we will call tonight's segment."
0:45-0:50 "[The segment title] feels about right."
0:55-1:10 "Of the many truly depressing things about this case, where a man was found not guilty after admitting pursuing and shooting an unarmed teenager..."
1:10-1:35 [clips of news anchors stating the verdict was correct under Florida law]
1:40-1:45 "We can get a verdict like this, not because the system has broken down, but because the system is working exactly as designed."
1:50-2:20 "[recap of events] And if at any point during that process, you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say 'Well, you did what you could.'" note that disagreeing with this fact proves you aren't paying attention.
2:40-2:50 "[this case] definitely has some racial undertones, if not racial only-tones."
3:00-3:20 [clip of George Zimmerman's lawyer saying that if George Zimmerman was black, "he never would have been charged with a crime"]
3:20-3:40 "[sarcastically] because our legal system is notorious for being lenient on black people."
3:50-4:00 [clip of George Zimmerman's brother stating that vigilantes are a threat]
4:00-4:05 "That was George Zimmerman's brother"
4:05-4:10 "expressing a fear of armed vigilantes."
4:15-4:30 [clip of a Florida congressman stating that there will be no changes to the Stand Your Ground laws.]I noticed you stopped watching the moment there was a hint of a counterexample to the case. Start from 4:30 and watch for yourself, everyone.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
we know this because he shot a kid who wasn't actually robbing anyone
He was attacked. What the fuck is wrong with you people? How do you not understand this?? If I came up and started beating the holy-living-shit out of you, it would be pretty ridiculous for me to complain when you shot me, right?
Except there's more to the timeline than that.
Let's take it from Martin's perspective. Let's hypothesize a scenario where Zimmerman's shot missed, or he forgot to load his gun that morning or something. And he hits his head on the concrete hard enough to be put in a coma (thus unable to testify).
Now the story would be (from Martin's perspective); I was walking home by myself when some shady looking guy started following me. I don't know the neighborhood, but this is the south and he looked like he might be racist, so I was afraid, but I just kept walking. He kept following me, so I ran and I think I ditched him, but I got lost. When I came around a corner and saw him still there, I figured running wasn't an option so I had to confront him. As we were struggling, I saw his gun and that's when I freaked out. I was just totally out of my mind with fear. The only thing running through my mind was that my mom was going to see me on the news dragged behind a truck or hung from a tree or something. I didn't mean to hurt him that bad, I just kept swinging until he stopping trying to shoot me.And, given that scenario, it would be pretty ridiculous to complain about the beating that Zimmerman took.
That's my point about them both being dumb. They were dumb because it wasn't necessary for anyone to die, but it happened anyway.
-
@Ben L. said:
Okay, here's a transcription of the facts that are in the video. Tell me which ones are misrepresented or taken out of context:
*sigh*
Ok, sure, I will. But instead of quoting each and every line, I'm going to take out anything that
1) Was obviously false (First 2 lines)
2) Wasn't said by John Oliver (clips)
3) Was a question or wasn't a complete sentence (4th and 5th lines)
and just address things that John Oliver represented on the show.
0:55-1:10 "Of the many truly depressing things about this case, where a man was found not guilty after admitting pursuing and shooting an unarmed teenager..."
Misrepresenting because it makes it sound as though he shot him while persuing. Specifying unarmed also implies that TM was helpless against JZ.
1:40-1:45 "We can get a verdict like this, not because the system has broken down, but because the system is working exactly as designed."
I suppose this is technically true, but is saying that there's something wrong with the verdict, which there isn't. It's more of an opinion than a fact (The system didn't work)
1:50-2:20 "[recap of events] And if at any point during that process, you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say 'Well, you did what you could.'" note that disagreeing with this fact proves you aren't paying attention.
1) Poisoning the well. 2) Is trying to say that GZ did something illegal and shot someone because of it, when in reality the only thing illegal was TM attacking him.
2:40-2:50 "[this case] definitely has some racial undertones, if not racial only-tones."
There were no racial motivations by GZ, which is what this is implying. Or, if you group it with the next lines, can be answered the same as them.
3:00-3:20 [clip of George Zimmerman's lawyer saying that if George Zimmerman was black, "he never would have been charged with a crime"]
3:20-3:40 "[sarcastically] because our legal system is notorious for being lenient on black people."Quote is taken out of context. The lawyer was saying that the only reason that he was charged was because people were outraged because for once a black kid was killed by a non-black. Had he been black, nobody would have cared (ala Chicago). The part that JO says is a complete non-sequiter.
4:00-4:05 "That was George Zimmerman's brother"
4:05-4:10 "expressing a fear of armed vigilantes."Implies that GZ was going out to kill someone in order to get justice done, when all he was doing was reporting to the police about crime in his neighborhood, and trying to keep track of the suspect.
-
@Snooder said:
Now the story would be (from Martin's perspective); I was walking home by myself when some shady looking guy started following me. I don't know the neighborhood, but this is the south and he looked like he might be racist, so I was afraid, but I just kept walking. He kept following me, so I ran and I think I ditched him, but I got lost. When I came around a corner and saw him still there, I figured running wasn't an option so I had to confront him. As we were struggling, I saw his gun and that's when I freaked out. I was just totally out of my mind with fear. The only thing running through my mind was that my mom was going to see me on the news dragged behind a truck or hung from a tree or something. I didn't mean to hurt him that bad, I just kept swinging until he stopping trying to shoot me.
It would only be justifiable for him to beat Zimmerman if he was being threatened. Being followed is not justifiable grounds for beating someone into a coma, you lunatic.
The absolutely incredible thing is that people act like I'm some bloodthirsty monster for thinking Zimmerman being shot was a good thing because he was brutally attacking an innocent man. And then those same people turn around and come up with shit like "Well, if Zimmerman had insulted Martin's taste in music, clearly Martin would have been justified in beating that faggot until he had a subdural hematoma, so it's not like we can say what happened." I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.
@Snooder said:
That's my point about them both being dumb. They were dumb because it wasn't necessary for anyone to die, but it happened anyway.
Martin was clearly a dangerous thug. The world is just lucky ZImmerman put him down before he killed some innocent person. Zimmerman's a great guy and people should be praising him.
-
@Snooder said:
From the part where he lost GZ, he COULD SEE THE HOUSE HE WAS STAYING AT. Also, you have the 911 calls and the witnesses saying how GZ was yelling for help. Also, there would be no reason to believe that TM couldn't run again... GZ was a short stocky guy, remember... TM could easily outrun him again. Also, why would they be struggling? Just because there is a confrontation doesn't mean there is a struggle.@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
we know this because he shot a kid who wasn't actually robbing anyone
He was attacked. What the fuck is wrong with you people? How do you not understand this?? If I came up and started beating the holy-living-shit out of you, it would be pretty ridiculous for me to complain when you shot me, right?
Except there's more to the timeline than that.
Let's take it from Martin's perspective. Let's hypothesize a scenario where Zimmerman's shot missed, or he forgot to load his gun that morning or something. And he hits his head on the concrete hard enough to be put in a coma (thus unable to testify).
Now the story would be (from Martin's perspective); I was walking home by myself when some shady looking guy started following me. I don't know the neighborhood, but this is the south and he looked like he might be racist, so I was afraid, but I just kept walking. He kept following me, so I ran and I think I ditched him, but I got lost. When I came around a corner and saw him still there, I figured running wasn't an option so I had to confront him. As we were struggling, I saw his gun and that's when I freaked out. I was just totally out of my mind with fear. The only thing running through my mind was that my mom was going to see me on the news dragged behind a truck or hung from a tree or something. I didn't mean to hurt him that bad, I just kept swinging until he stopping trying to shoot me.And, given that scenario, it would be pretty ridiculous to complain about the beating that Zimmerman took.
That's my point about them both being dumb. They were dumb because it wasn't necessary for anyone to die, but it happened anyway.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It would only be justifiable for him to beat Zimmerman if he was being threatened. Being followed is not justifiable grounds for beating someone into a coma, you lunatic.
(A) Being followed by a strange white man at night in the south is pretty threatening.
(B) We have nobody's word but Zimmerman about what happened when they finally met up.@morbiuswilters said:
The absolutely incredible thing is that people act like I'm some bloodthirsty monster for thinking Martin being shot was a good thing because he was brutally attacking an innocent man.
And then those same people turn around and come up with shit like "Well, if Zimmerman had insulted Martin's taste in music, clearly Martin would have been justified in beating that faggot until he had a subdural hematoma, so it's not like we can say what happened."I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.
I'll ignore that middle part because nobody here has said that, so it's clearly you just trying to distract everyone. Here's the thing, Zimmerman wasn't just "an innocent man" minding his own business. He was stalking someone. Someone who really was innocent when Zimmerman started stalking him. This isn't a case where Martin was casing the place or actually doing anything shady. Zimmerman was wrong to think that Martin was suspicious, and acted aggressively on his mistaken belief. Getting his ass-kicked for that is not out of bounds.By the same token where Zimmerman might be afraid that Martin was a burglar, Martin might also be justified in fearing that Zimmerman was a racist out to hurt him. And given that fear, it's not unreasonable for him to defend himself physically.
The only thing here that's hard to comprehend is how you can be entirely lacking in empathy for the 17 year old and so full of sympathy for the guy who shot him. I'm hoping it's just because you don't actually think this through, rather than the more obvious reason. (hint, I'm referring to their skintones)@morbiuswilters said:
Martin was clearly a dangerous thug. The world is just lucky ZImmerman put him down before he killed some innocent person. Zimmerman's a great guy and people should be praising him.
This is the part that makes people think you are a bloodthirsty monster. Martin was a fairly typical 17 year old kid. He didn't have a criminal record. He wasn't doing anything crazy. Calling him a dangerous thug is slanderous and entirely un-called for.
-
Zimmerman was not stalking. Look up what stalking is in Florida. Zimmerman was following. Following does not justify attacking.
Zimmerman was not wrong that Martin was suspicious, given the totality of the circumstances. However, trayvon had not done anything illegal*.
Even if Zimmerman was a racist, trayvon does not get to attack him, that is still illegal on trayvon.
Personally, I'm not lacking in sympathy, it's a tragic circumstance. But Martin WAS a thug and given his home life, was likely to turn out to be a felon.
Justifiable homicide - Wikipedia