and two that are not so much.
:shrug: I’ve never been all that great at food-fighting.
Yeah, you seem to be more of a feces slinger than anything.
Yes, that’s exactly why I responded to the substance of gamerununknown’s comments and others responded non-substantively. :rolleyes:
Well, allow me to clarify. I think that if Zimmerman has committed a crime, he should be found guilty. I think that’s what most people would support - to support the alternative (that he be found guilty regardless of whether or not he committed a crime) would be considered a miscarriage of justice.
However, someone could desire that the law be carried out, accept that his actions were not criminal and still wish that they were considered criminal. Such is the case in England, where duress is not a defence for murder.
It may also be the case that they do not wish for Zimmerman’s testimony to be true because it confirms a narrative where Zimmerman held a stereotypical view of Martin which was confirmed when Martin assaulted Zimmerman from behind with no provocation. Their preferred narrative may be that Zimmerman was paranoid and adrenaline fueled, confronted Martin and then shot him. So while it would be true that in the former case an innocent person is not dead (since Martin would have committed the misdemeanor crime of battery), it’s slightly disingenuous to suggest that it should be preferable almost by definition. I’m sure almost everyone would have wished that both parties were innocent and alive today.
Edit: Also, I know I’ll sound like a sanctimonious prick for saying this after you guys defended my statement, but I’d prefer if you addressed brazil84 by his screen name. Shortening his name is a form of minor deindividuation.
So you’re saying that Zimmermans is guilty as hell and should go right to jail without a trial?
(Brazil doesn’t get up for another few hours, and I didn’t want you to have to wait.)
Agree so far.
So again my question: Assuming that Zimmerman’s apparent story is correct, i.e. after Zimmerman started to withdraw from the situation, Martin approached him; threatened his life; physically attacked him, started to beat him; and reached for Zimmerman’s gun, do you think Zimmerman’s conduct should be considered criminal, and presumably result in a prison sentence?
I agree, I think a lot of people are basically rooting for their team at this point.
I don’t think it’s pertinent to US law. I can certainly judge his actions by my own standards, but I don’t think it’s plausible that they’ll apply to him. Perhaps if he is found innocent, it may serve as a bigger motivator to remove the qualifier of duress from murder, or rewrite laws that offer theft as a defence against accusations of murder.
So, do you guys ever actually argue about the subject at hand or do you just fuck up whole pages of threads arguing about whether or not you actually said anything?
That’s what I’m saying. Jeeze!
So back to the actual story…
I hope everyone realizes that if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the fall-out will make the OJ Simpson / Casey Anthony verdicts look like a May Day picnic.
Fair enough runny, but only 'cause you asked nicely.
Show me where we did either of those things or apologize.
And probably vice-versa.
One cannot go to prison without a verdict going against you. You are making a distinction without a difference.
You asked a leading question that contained a strawman. And just like such stawmen infuriate you, they often infuriate others. If you do not want people to attack you here in the forum specifically designed for such attacks, t would behoove you to not use such strawmen in the future. I see you’ve already fixed your mistake once and hope you continue to do so in the future.
It also would behoove you to repeal any ban that came because of this misunderstanding on your part.
I can see how people think brazil84 is a giant douche.
Well you were making a point about what you think the law ought to be, right?
It seems you were saying that the law should necessarily sanction a person who follows and then shoots an unarmed teenager. It seems you are saying that Zimmerman’s conduct should be unlawful just based on the undisputed facts.
Did I misunderstand you?
I agree, and that’s exactly why Jack Batty was (meta) strawmanning me.
LIAR!
**gamerunknown **mention “whatever the verdict;” you turned that into “he should go to prison?”
Strawman!
You, sir, are BANNED!
Be sure to check my nerd-blog for updates.
Not really, because I was responding hypothetically to the point of why people would want Zimmerman to be found guilty (“they will know that” rather than “we will know that”). I will say that in the imperfect hypothetical described (an unarmed individual attacks another without being provoked, the other individual shoots and kills the attacker), there should be a partial defence for murder. Retaliation was warranted, but disproportionate* (or so says the law of Eristic Escalation).
As I said, that’s completely divorced from what the law actually is (and thus how it ought to be applied in this particular case) and possibly from the circumstances surrounding the killing of Martin. Wanting Zimmerman to be found not guilty fits well under the “Just World Hypothesis”, where (stated crudely) bad things happen to bad people.
- So if actions like this were criminal, individuals would be discouraged from carrying weapons or following people that looked like criminals at all. Those that did carry weapons would seek to avoid altercations, since they could still be held liable even if they did not initiate the confrontation. It would also avoid scenarios where someone that accidentally kills someone in self-defence faces mandatory sentencing, which is sometimes the case in England due to duress not being a mitigating factor at all.