Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Locked
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed May 23, 2012 3:34 pm

amused wrote:Zimmerman got out of his car,
legal
amused wrote: armed,
legal

amused wrote: with intent to start some shit.
You can only be assuming that, rather than basing it on evidence. It is also reasonable to assume he had the intent to maintain visual surveillance of Martin, so that he can identify Martin for the police, whom he called, when the police arrived.

And, even if he had the intent to start "some shit" the Devil is in the details, what shit did he intend to start? And, did he actually start the shit?

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51231
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Tero » Wed May 23, 2012 3:37 pm

I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed May 23, 2012 3:38 pm

Tero wrote:I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.
Can you rephrase that in English? :ask:

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by amused » Wed May 23, 2012 3:39 pm

Shit was indeed started.

There was no need to start any shit at all.

If Zimmerman had just remained in his car, there would be no shit starting and there wouldn't be a dead kid today.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by FBM » Wed May 23, 2012 3:39 pm

amused wrote:Zimmerman got out of his car, armed, with intent to start some shit.
Ascertaining intent is incredibly difficult. Under the circumstances, his ostensible intent was to prevent some shit, in the form of a possible break-in. Only the first person can really know for sure what his/her intent is/was. Arguing intent is a usually dead-end alley in legal proceedings, I think. Very hard to prove without something like written or recorded plans.

I don't know either Zimmerman's nor Martin's intent, and I doubt seriously if anyone else does. Maybe Zimmerman was out to kill him a nigger, maybe Martin was out to case the neighborhood for his next robbery. Maybe Zimmerman followed, maybe Martin did a u-turn and surprised Zimm. Maybe this, maybe that. Maybe something else entirely. What's so embarrasingly obvious is that nobody knows, yet so many "rational" and "skeptical" people are so eager to claim such knowledge in order to affirm this or that bias, evidence and rationality be damned. Embarrassing.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed May 23, 2012 3:46 pm

amused wrote:Shit was indeed started.
By whom, we seem to have dearth of evidence.
amused wrote:
There was no need to start any shit at all.
See above.
amused wrote:
If Zimmerman had just remained in his car, there would be no shit starting and there wouldn't be a dead kid today.
If Martin had just stayed home, the same would be true.

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by amused » Wed May 23, 2012 3:47 pm

The safest form of travel is to stay home.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by FBM » Wed May 23, 2012 3:49 pm

amused wrote:Shit was indeed started.

There was no need to start any shit at all.

If Zimmerman had just remained in his car, there would be no shit starting and there wouldn't be a dead kid today.
And if the police didn't encourage neighborhood watches, Zimmerman wouldn't have been in the position to be involved in the first place. Police encourage and cooperate with neighborhood watches because they're so severely outnumbered by criminals. This doesn't mean that Martin was one (though subsequent evidence proves that he was), but it justifies the existence of people like Zimmerman and their presence in under-policed neighborhoods. He had a right to be there, he had a right to be doing what he was doing. Maybe Martin did, too.

To reiterate something I mentioned a while back, there are at least 4 possibilities that are left open by the available evidence. Zimmerman was right/Martin was wrong, Zimmerman was wrong/Martin was right, both Zimmerman and Martin were right, both Zimmerman and Martin were wrong. There is no conclusive evidence available to date to justify an assertion of certain knowledge as to which of these possibilities is true, as far as I know. Maybe that evidence will appear later, and I hope it does. But an intellectually honest person would, at this point, simply admit that s/he doesn't know. Anything else is just an expression of bias, whether racial or political or whatever.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by amused » Wed May 23, 2012 3:56 pm

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by maiforpeace » Wed May 23, 2012 3:59 pm

amused wrote:Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?
Apparently many do...you, of all people should realize that, living in Texas. I realize, however, that you live in Austin which is the exception rather than the rule.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by kiki5711 » Wed May 23, 2012 4:00 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Yes it does require intent.

It doesn't require premeditation and deliberation, but it is still intentional homicide. 2d degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. First degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation.

How am I sidetracked? Others have raised the issue that he had the intent to provoke Martin so that he could kill Martin in alleged self-defense. I just wondered why someone with that sort of intent would call 911, guaranteeing the cops would be there to examine the fresh crime scene.
Even I think that's ridiculous.

I still stand by my belief that it was an accident gone wrong...wrong on BOTH sides. To what extent or percentage remains to be seen. It's not as simplistic as he started it, so he's responsible...whoever 'he' is.
I also don't think zimm was hell bent on killing martin from the start. But he understemated what kind of reaction he would get from martin, and since he was not trained in how to handle these situations, his first and most obvious option was to shoot.

However, I think that if zimm didn't have a gun, and they just punched the bejezzus out of each other it would have been much better. Even more better would have been if zimm never got out of his car, call 911 and stay put. But getting out of his car and following martin, he was escalating the situation that led to the confrontation.

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by kiki5711 » Wed May 23, 2012 4:03 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
amused wrote:Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?
Apparently many do...you, of all people should realize that, living in Texas. I realize, however that you live in Austin which is the exception rather than the rule.
In view of the martin case, I think the stand your ground law will be modified and more specific if not changed all together. Usually takes someone to die before anything changes.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51231
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Tero » Wed May 23, 2012 4:05 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Tero wrote:I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he would be parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.
Can you rephrase that in English? :ask:
My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed May 23, 2012 4:08 pm

amused wrote:Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?
Objection, lack of foundation.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started shit with anybody. Is there?

Nobody has asserted the claim that Zimmerman would be allowed to start a fight with Martin and then claim self-defense. However, he is certainly allowed to ask him what he's doing in the neighborhood, and watch where he's going. It is an unlawful assault if Martin responded to that with violence, and Zimmerman would be able to claim self defense.

That, of course, may not be what happened, but the point is we don't really know what happened, and therefore since multiple possiblities are supported by the evidence, there must be reasonable doubt.

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by maiforpeace » Wed May 23, 2012 4:10 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
amused wrote:Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?
Objection, lack of foundation.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started shit with anybody. Is there?

Nobody has asserted the claim that Zimmerman would be allowed to start a fight with Martin and then claim self-defense. However, he is certainly allowed to ask him what he's doing in the neighborhood, and watch where he's going. It is an unlawful assault if Martin responded to that with violence, and Zimmerman would be able to claim self defense.

That, of course, may not be what happened, but the point is we don't really know what happened, and therefore since multiple possiblities are supported by the evidence, there must be reasonable doubt.
Objection, lack of foundation? :lol:
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests