# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 615
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12282 "2018-01-09T19:06:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You are a disgusting human being. You are the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses, you are the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because “they deserve it” based on their previouis actions. You are the reason people gte laughed at rather than sympathised with when they get scammed. Zimmerman belongs in the category with all of them, not being blamed for anything. > > You are repulsive. Says the repeated liar who called an unarmed black kid who did nothing more than possibly play loud music and who was then murdered, a “thug”, and expressed no sadness he was killed. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12283 "2018-01-09T19:07:53Z")
He is detestable troll plop, and we should all be done feeding him. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12284 "2018-01-09T19:10:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > So what? …oh for fucks sake are you for fucking real? Your claim was that there was “no justification for imminent fear”. Your claim was that Martin might have been in fear was “factually wrong”. In response to your assertions I laid out a pretty firm rebuttal. And your response is so fucking what? Are you a bot? Or just stupid? > [@](#): > > Being in fear of someone being “up to no good” doesn’t justify slamming their head into the ground. Being in fear for your life is a good reason to protect yourself. And as it turns out: Martin had a good fucking reason to fear for his life. We know this because he ended up dead. > [@](#): > > There is nothing at all that suggests that Martin had reason to fear death or serious injury before he injured Zimmerman. Except the evidence that came out in trial. Which you helpfully pointed out for us. > [@](#): > > Claiming otherwise necessarily involves guessing what happened. Should we add the word “suggests” to the list of words you don’t understand the meaning of? Here’s the dictionary definition. “cause one to think that (something) exists or is the case.” Its a subjective word, not an objective one. Suggesting someone had reason to fear is only a “suggestion”: it isn’t a statement of absolute fact. I’ve put forward a case that Martin was probably fearful. The things he said in the telephone conversation before he died. Rachel said he started to run home. Of course I’m fucking “guessing”. Are you stupid? I’m “guessing”, based on the evidence, that Martin had good reason to fear. You are “guessing”, based on Zimmerman’s testimony, that Martin did not. > [@](#): > > All of that is false except for the fact that he shot him. My opinion is certainly not false. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman has never encounterd Martin before that day, so it is impossible that he stalked him. You are, again, using that word to mean “harassed”, and even that is not true. Do I need to quote the fucking dictionary to you again? Stalking is the act “of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing”. It doesn’t require an earlier encounter. Words can have multiple meanings. > [@](#): > > It is utterly wrong to blame Zimmerman for Martin’s death. Zimmerman was the victim of a serious, unprovoked attack, and you want to blame him because he somehow lead Martin on? Zimmerman stalked Martin for no good fucking reason. He should have stayed in the fucking car. > [@](#): > > Try that with a rape victim, you fucking victim blaming scumbag. Zimmerman wasn’t the fucking victim. Martin had no good reason to die that day. There is a good chance that Martin was defending himself. We can’t know this because Martin is dead. We can’t hear his story. And we can’t hear his story because Zimmerman didn’t stay in the fucking car. > [@](#): > > You are a disgusting human being. You are the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses, you are the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because “they deserve it” based on their previouis actions. You are the reason people gte laughed at rather than sympathised with when they get scammed. Zimmerman belongs in the category with all of them, not being blamed for anything. Its people like Zimmerman who are the reason why black people have a reasonable fear of doing any fucking thing. They can’t even walk home without getting killed. And don’t you fucking insult me by bringing up sexual assault. My position on that has been made clear in multiple threads throughout the boards you piece of shit. You don’t fucking know me. You don’t fucking know what I’ve been through. How dare you bring that up. Stick to the fucking topic you disgusting peice of filth. > [@](#): > > You are repulsive. ROFL!!! ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12285 "2018-01-09T19:12:51Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not saying that Zimmerman threatened Martin, I am saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman. Isn’t that your standard for when self defense comes into play? No, that’s not the standard. That’s never been the standard, I’ve never claimed that’s the standard, nor suggested that it should be the standard. Are you really that incapable of reading the literally hundreds of posts saying that? The standard is whether the fear is reasonable, and based on the evidence we have, Martin had no reason to fear Zimmerman. Do you actually disagree? Do you think that you should be able to grab someone who’s been following you and asking where you are going, and smash their head into the ground? Because that’s what Martin did, as far as we know. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12286 "2018-01-09T19:15:52Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > What if I tell someone not to reach for their gun and then they reach for it. Is that a threat? Who are you, who are they, and what is the circumstance? Absent any circumstances that would change things, yes that would be a threat. If you are a bank robber holding someone hostage, obviously they can disobey you legally. If they are a cop, then no, it’s not a threat you can act on. But usually, yes it would be. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12287 "2018-01-09T19:20:32Z")
Can we do a real life test for Steophan? If he makes it back alive unlike Martin, we will continue the discussion. If not, he will know what we speak is true. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12288 "2018-01-09T19:23:32Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Zimmerman wasn’t the fucking victim. Why would you keep saying that when it’s been proven otherwise? I suppose you think Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile are victims, along with violent thugs like Trayvon Martin? You fucking scumbag. Now, if you _don’t_ think that, and actually have experience of victimhood yourself, _stop with the fucking victim blaming._ Stop defending criminals at the expense of their victims. Zimmerman was attacked for no reason - that is, nothing he did gave any reason for Martin to attack him. And yet you blame him. And, once again, “stalking” is a repeated pattern of behaviour, involving several instances of harrassment. That it has other, colloquial meanings is irrelevant when we are discussing whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime. When you say “stalking”, you mean “following”, but are using a loaded term to mislead people. Because you’re a scumbag. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12289 "2018-01-09T19:24:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If they are a cop, then no, it’s not a threat you can act on. Why not? I told him not to pull his weapon, and he did. Therefore it’s a threat, so I can shoot him because I was afraid. Cops get to do it, why can’t I? Why do cops get special treatment? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12290 "2018-01-09T19:24:45Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > Can we do a real life test for Steophan? If he makes it back alive unlike Martin, we will continue the discussion. If not, he will know what we speak is true. Are you asking if I’ll launch an unprovoked attack on someone who approaches me and talks to me in the street? I wouldn’t, but if I did, I wouldn’t be the victim there. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12291 "2018-01-09T19:26:47Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why not? I told him not to pull his weapon, and he did. Therefore it’s a threat, so I can shoot him because I was afraid. You can’t shoot someone just because you are afraid. > [@](#): > > Cops get to do it, why can’t I? Why do cops get special treatment? Because they are cops, and allowed to use force to subdue suspects. But then, you knew both those things anyway, and are obviously trolling now. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12292 "2018-01-09T19:32:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You can’t shoot someone just because you are afraid You can’t? I see videos of cops doing it all the time. Unless you think a guy in the street on his back with his hands and legs in the air is a threat. > [@](#): > > Because they are cops, and allowed to use force to subdue suspects I’m allowed to use force to subdue people. If I wasn’t, then what is the point of carrying a gun around? Isn’t shooting someone using force? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12293 "2018-01-09T19:37:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why would you keep saying that when it’s been proven otherwise? …do I need to explain the meaning of the word “proven” to you now? For fucks sakes. It hasn’t been “proved” that Zimmerman was a victim. He was put on trial for second-degree murder and found not guilty. That doesn’t prove jack shit. > [@](#): > > I suppose you think Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile are victims, along with violent thugs like Trayvon Martin? You fucking scumbag. Trayvon Martin wasn’t a violent thug. Zimmerman is a violent thug. And Weinstein and Savile are not victims. And I’m not a fucking scumbag. Any other questions? > [@](#): > > Now, if you _don’t_ think that, and actually have experience of victimhood yourself, _stop with the fucking victim blaming._ Zimmerman isn’t a victim. Therefore I am not victim blaming. > [@](#): > > Stop defending criminals at the expense of their victims. What crime was Martin convicted of? > [@](#): > > Zimmerman was attacked for no reason - that is, nothing he did gave any reason for Martin to attack him. And yet you blame him. I have every reason, based on the evidence provided at trial, to believe that Martin was protecting himself. > [@](#): > > And, once again, “stalking” is a repeated pattern of behaviour, involving several instances of harrassment. And once again: you don’t understand the english language. The definition I cited does not require several instances. > [@](#): > > That it has other, colloquial meanings is irrelevant when we are discussing whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime. Good god you are stupid. I never claimed that Zimmerman’s “stalking” was a fucking crime. It was descriptive of his actions. > [@](#): > > When you say “stalking”, you mean “following”, but are using a loaded term to mislead people. When I say stalking I mean fucking stalking because it is the word that best fits Zimmerman’s behaviour in my humble fucking opinion. Its as loaded a term as the way you are using the word “victim.” But I’m not pathetically demanding you stop using the word victim. Stop being pathetic. > [@](#): > > Because you’re a scumbag. ROFL!!! Even your insults are just plain incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12294 "2018-01-09T19:38:08Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You can’t? I see videos of cops doing it all the time. Unless you think a guy in the street on his back with his hands and legs in the air is a threat. The standard isn’t “being a threat” either. Try again. > [@](#): > > I’m allowed to use force to subdue people. If I wasn’t, then what is the point of carrying a gun around? Isn’t shooting someone using force? My quote didn’t say “people”. Cops are allowed to use force to subdue suspects, you (more or less) are not. There are caveats for citizen’s arrests, but they are extremely restricied. A cop, doing his job, pointing his gun at you as not a threat you are allowed to defend against. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12295 "2018-01-09T19:44:08Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, that’s not the standard. That’s never been the standard, I’ve never claimed that’s the standard, nor suggested that it should be the standard. > > Are you really that incapable of reading the literally hundreds of posts saying that? > > The standard is whether the fear is reasonable, and based on the evidence we have, Martin had no reason to fear Zimmerman. > > Do you actually disagree? Do you think that you should be able to grab someone who’s been following you and asking where you are going, and smash their head into the ground? Because that’s what Martin did, as far as we know. If someone has a gun and is following you off the roads, on the sidewalk between buildings, then yeah, there is reason to fear that the armed man who is following you means you harm. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to fear someone who is armed and following you in the dark, off the road? If so, you are even stupider than I had thought, and I had thought you were pretty fucking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12296 "2018-01-09T19:49:40Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Trayvon Martin wasn’t a violent thug. Zimmerman is a violent thug. You have that backwards, as you would know if you’ve read my posts properly, or looked at the actual evidence elsewhere. > [@](#): > > What crime was Martin convicted of? Irrelevant. You are defending criminals in general. > [@](#): > > I have every reason, based on the evidence provided at trial, to believe that Martin was protecting himself. No, you do not. That is, again, a factually false statement. The evidence simply does not support the claim that Martin was defending himself. There is, quite literally, zero evidence that Zimmerman was a threat to Martin. None whatsoever. And by now, you’ve had that shown to you often enough that it’s no longer a mistake, it’s a deliberate lie. > [@](#): > > Good god you are stupid. I never claimed that Zimmerman’s “stalking” was a fucking crime. It was descriptive of his actions. > > When I say stalking I mean fucking stalking because it is the word that best fits Zimmerman’s behaviour in my humble fucking opinion. Its as loaded a term as the way you are using the word “victim.” But I’m not pathetically demanding you stop using the word victim. Stop being pathetic. No, it’s an outright lie. Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, even by an inappropriate colloquial usage. He _followed_ him, that is all. And you know what? _Fuck_ your uninformed opinion. It is as valuable and informed as those who think Obama was born in Kenya, or that vaccines cause autism, or any other utterly unsupported lie. Zimmerman was the victim of an unprovoked attack, and you want him punished for that. You know how it’s easy to know that? Imagine the police had arrived a couple of minutes earlier, before Martin was killed. Then imagine all the evidence up to that point is the same. Martin would be charged, and convicted, of assault at minimum. This isn’t some bizarre “Unsolved Mysteries” thing. We don’t know every single detail of what happened, but we know Martin attacked Zimmerman, and we have no evidence of any provocation. > [@](#): > > ROFL!!! Even your insults are just plain incompetent. You are both ignorant and dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12297 "2018-01-09T19:50:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > My quote didn’t say “people”. Cops are allowed to use force to subdue suspects, you (more or less) are not. There are caveats for citizen’s arrests, but they are extremely restricied I can’t use force to subdue a person who shot up a church and is running away? Isn’t he a suspect? Could I, say, get into another car and chase him down? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12298 "2018-01-09T19:53:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If someone has a gun and is following you off the roads, on the sidewalk between buildings, then yeah, there is reason to fear that the armed man who is following you means you harm. > > Are you saying that it is unreasonable to fear someone who is armed and following you in the dark, off the road? > > If so, you are even stupider than I had thought, and I had thought you were pretty fucking stupid. It may be reasonable to think he intends to harm, or rob, or rape you at some point. Again, so what? That is, once again, not the standard where self defence is allowed. There needs to be reasonable fear of imminent attack, not just general fear that something bad might happen. Martin may have been in reasonable fear that Zimmerman did not have good intentions, but so what? He had a phone on him, and could easily have called the police. _That_ is the reasonable response, not to bash his head into the ground. Also, unlike many cases discussed here, Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed, so that’s irrelevant, and his state of mind would not have been affected by that. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12299 "2018-01-09T19:56:09Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I can’t use force to subdue a person who shot up a church and is running away? Isn’t he a suspect? Could I, say, get into another car and chase him down? Is he an imminent threat to other people? Is it reasonable to believe he is? If so, then yes you can. You can’t, as a private individual, shoot him because he is a suspect, you can if you reasonably believe he is a threat. That particular case? Grey area where he probably didn’t meet that actual standard and acted illegally, but there’s no chance in hell any jury would convict. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12300 "2018-01-09T19:58:11Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Is he an imminent threat to other people? Is it reasonable to believe he is? If so, then yes you can. > > You can’t, as a private individual, shoot him because he is a suspect, you can if you reasonably believe he is a threat. I’m still not sure what makes this different than what police can do. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12301 "2018-01-09T19:58:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why would you keep saying that when it’s been proven otherwise? I suppose you think Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile are victims, along with violent thugs like Trayvon Martin? You fucking scumbag. > > Now, if you _don’t_ think that, and actually have experience of victimhood yourself, _stop with the fucking victim blaming._ Stop defending criminals at the expense of their victims. Zimmerman was attacked for no reason - that is, nothing he did gave any reason for Martin to attack him. And yet you blame him. > > And, once again, “stalking” is a repeated pattern of behaviour, involving several instances of harrassment. That it has other, colloquial meanings is irrelevant when we are discussing whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime. When you say “stalking”, you mean “following”, but are using a loaded term to mislead people. Because you’re a scumbag. Is this becoming personal? Did someone hurt you at some point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=614) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=616)