Oh, because I think that someone shouldn’t have to “take an ass-whuppin” I’m scum? Fuck that shit. Why on earth should they?
No, no. You’re absolutely right. You should go around looking for a fight, and when you get one, kill the guy. Rely on the legal principle of “he said/he dead.” That’s really fine with me.
No, obviously not. But that’s irrelevant, as no-one’s suggested it.
The real problem is that you think that someone should submit to a beating and not be allowed to defend themself.
Which is a strawman with little bearing on saoirse’s position. Defending oneself does not necessitate killing an attacker (in this case, we do not even know if the attacker was an aggressor, in which case they wouldn’t even be defending themselves in the first place). Thinking one ought to defend oneself in this position does not entail thinking that there should be no legal consequences when one’s defence is disproportionate to what is required.
Out of interest, do you think that other battery cases should carry the death penalty? How severe do you think battery should be in order that one can kill the batterer with no consequences?
Bricker, do you think the law is equitable when it determines that it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the person doing the killing, rather than the person that was killed, was the one that initiated an altercation?
There doesn’t have to be any battery for it to be acceptable to kill the other person, as one could put someone in genuine fear for their life without touching them. The standard is, as it should be, that one must have a reasonable fear for their life, or of serious injury.
Of course battery cases shouldn’t carry the death penalty, but that’s another straw man. No-one is arguing that Martin deserved to die - he didn’t. However, Zimmerman didn’t deserve to be punched in the face and have his head smashed into the ground, and if that is in fact what happened he had the right to defend himself. In that scenario, Martin’s death is an unfortunate consequence of his own actions.
Self-defence laws exist so that people can kill those that batter them.
If necessary, yes. That is in no way equivalent to saying they deserve to die, or that they should be executed.
It’s rare to see idiocy so pure.
Look buddy, if you want to conclude that Zimmerman is a poopyhead (or “immoral” or “unethical” or whatever) based on what you think you know about the incident, then that’s fine, you can say that I won’t argue with you about it.
But when you say that he is guilty of a crime, you are making a legal conclusion. That is different than a conclusion that he is a poopyhead or whatever. And the reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion must be different (i.e., you have to use actual legal reasoning). Your post (and brain) is completely devoid of any actual legal reasoning, much less any that leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime.
To add to what Rand Rover has said, if you wish to claim that he should be punished for his actions, you have to show that he has done something illegal, not simply immoral or unpleasant.
If it’s not illegal to stalk minors as prey for the crime of being black and then confront them, knowing full well you are armed and your target is not so you can just blast the negro into oblivion if he dares fight back, then the whole legislature of Florida should be put into jail for facilitating this environment. Either Zimmerman committed a crime or we have a rogue state declaring open season on black people. Pick which one you’d rather accept.
I agree. Also, it helps to avoid ambiguous phrases. What does it mean to “stalk someone as prey”? Does it include following a suspicious person with the intention of reporting that person to the police?
Of course that would be illegal. There’s not a single shred of evidence that this happened in this case, though.
I choose (c): your view of the world is FUBAR, and your ignorance is beyond my ability to fight.
No. I’ve said (ever since I fully understood the ramifications of Florida’s version of SYG) that it’s a horrible travesty.
I think self-defense works best as an affirmative defense. Florida’s decision to change it from an affirmative defense to a complete immunity with probable cause as the immunity threshold is a nightmare.
I’d say “a nightmare waiting to happen…” but it’s happened.
He already had reported the “suspicious person” to the police. They were on their way. And advised him not to further proceed with his Junior G-man fantasy. And while we are about the subject of ambiguous phrasing, how exactly was young Mr. Martin in any way “suspicious”? Was it the Skittles?
I completely agree with Bricker. But society is to blame.
But – let me clear on remedy. Florida needs to fix its law.
But Zimmerman gets the benefit of the law in place at the time. Because changing THAT would be a nightmare fifty times worse than the current one. We can’t ever let ourselves go down the path of saying, “We screwed up on a law, but let’s get this guy anyway.” A criminal defendant is entitled to the law as it’s written, and construed strictly against the state to boot. That’s how our law works.
Florida needs to act now to prevent another tragedy, but Zimmerman can’t be thrown under the bus. We can’t simply decide to ignore the law to get him.
Walking slowly, even though it was raining.
This is pure speculation, but my guess is that Martin was walking slowly, looking at the houses around him, and acting somewhat distracted because he was on the phone. Perfectly understandable behaviour for a bored teenager who was in the area for, I believe, the first time - but also behaviour that could justifiably give rise to suspicion when there have been several burglaries recently.
Sure.
This behavior, if observed by a police officer, would have allowed the police officer to approach Martin and ask him what his business in the neighborhood was.
Of course… this behavior, if observed by a certified massage therapist, would also have allowed the therapist to approach Martin and ask him what his business in the neighborhood was.
In other words, no legal justification is needed for any person to approach any other person in a public setting and ask them what they’re doing.