I’m saying fear is an emotion, and as such is orthogonal to reason. It’s pretty useless to categorize “reasonable” and “unreasonable” fears - either you feel it or you don’t, and if you do feel it it’s going to drive your actions ; regardless of actual facts or context.
A fear that is motivated solely by biased perceptions and unreal expectations fueled by TV fuckery or prejudice is no less real than what you’d dub “reasonable” fear.
You should probably take that up with your local lawmakers, then, as laws pretty much everywhere are based on reasonable actions.
Seems debatable, considering the Rodney King verdict. That nigger might have been on PCP, dontcherknow.
And it’s up to the jury to decide whether that’s reasonable. This is not a bad thing.
That distinction was quite helpful. Thanks.
For reference, I’ll requote the parts of SYG that made up a part of the Zimmerman jury instructions, noting that these had nothing to do with the immunity provisions: [INDENT][INDENT]If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and** had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force**, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [/INDENT] [/INDENT] Emphasis added for the casual reader.
Huh? Jeantel testified that TM referred to GZ as a “nigga” and a “creepy ass cracker” but didn’t call him a “nigga” and a “creepy ass cracker”???
It’s understood that Jeantel’s information was relayed to her via telephone. For the purposes of our discussion, I’m not seeing the difference between referred to and called.
Jeantel also thought that TM was by his father’s friend’s house, which was some 300ft away from the “T” where GZ was located. TM and GZ then met near the “T”. Words were exchange, and the fight was on.
It’s certain worth what I paid for it. GZ defense did not include SYG. Mark O’Mara based GZ’s defense on simple self-defense law, not on SYG law. The judge’s instruction to the jury, provided after the defense had rested it’s case, was not a part of O’Mara’s defense of GZ.
Jury instructions are given based on the claims and defenses raised in the trial, and with the consent of the parties. A jury instruction on a defense is part of the defense, as much so as any defense witness, exhibit, or argument.
I believe he means that the words in question were said to Jeantel when referring to GZ, but not said directly to GZ.
Yes, TM was talking to Jeantel and he was referring to GZ.
TM referred to GZ, or TM called GZ, comme ci comme ca.
Should I assume that GZ didn’t hear the conversation, because GZ was several hundred feet away, and couldn’t hear TM’s conversation. Or not.
You keep using those words. I do not think they sens what you think they sens.
Was it the same conversation where Martin said he lost him? If so, it might be safe to assume that Zimmerman was not within earshot.
That’s exactly what I meant, thank you. I suppose it’s a fine distinction but there was a clear implication from doorhinge’s phrasing that was inconsistent with the testimony.
You’re right. I used “comme ci comme ca” incorrectly. Mea culpa.
I also think it’s safe to assume that GZ was not with earshot of the TM/Jeantel conversation. TM and GZ had not yet met face-to-face, or, as it turned out, fist-to-face.
TM referred to GZ, or TM called GZ, it’s the same thing. It was Jeantel’s version of what TM had told her during their phone conversation.
Then you don’t understand what it means to be reasonable or what fear is. Fear is our fight or flight reaction that engages. Sometimes it engages when it is useful. Other times, it engages when it is not.
And reasonable doesn’t mean “completely devoid of emotion” but “if you sit and think about it, the action is prudent.” This applies a lot in fear situations. That’s why the fight or flight reaction exists. It gives us an increased ability to do either action.
Reason/rationality and logic are not the same thing. Reason is not devoid of emotion. If you believe that, you will have a really hard time handling your emotions.
The problem wasn’t with fear for his life. The problem was with the fact that he deliberately put himself in that situation where he would be able to fear for his life. That’s the issue with SYG laws–the encouragement of confrontation in situations where such is completely unwise and unnecessary.
That’s the need for the requirement to retreat–to stop people like Zimmerman who go out looking for trouble.
Are the Zimmerman defenders from way back at some point going to admit whether he was justified or not, the dude obviously has some personality disorder or is is nuts?
I mean how many incidents can one guy be involved with before this is made plain?
I’m not sure if I qualify as a Zimmerman defender.
I had already diagnosed Zimmerman with stupidity. I don’t think “nuts” is a useful description. And from what I know of it, this most recent incident isn’t fairly imputed to Zimmerman.
According to the Zimmerman Doctrine, it is; he’s the one that got shot, ergo, he must be guilty of something.
. <= this is the point. You’re 5 blocks away from it and accelerating.
Having someone trying to shoot you in the face isn’t evidence of a character defect. I would honestly expect Zimmerman to have face adversity and their subsequent confrontations for the rest of his life. His trial by media circus cemented opinions against him where even attempts on his own life are used as evidence that he is a creep.