The other side of the Trayvon Martin story...

Page 7 of 13 [ 200 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

29 Mar 2012, 12:00 am

simon_says wrote:

Emotionally I am as troubled for Zimmerman. This seems like manslaughter by a man whose brain doesnt work too well but if he's convicted there is a good chance he will be raped and killed in prison. I don't think that unofficial result is justice either.

Why? He made the decision to pull the trigger, whatever the end result (even if he does end up being raped and killed in a jail cell) is entirely his own fault.

Why would you feel bad for something he brought upon himself?

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Mar 2012, 6:08 am

simon_says wrote:

Fascinating. Any content? No. Just whining.

Yeah, that's annoying, isn't it? You know there's a word for when you complain when other people do something that you yourself do all the time...

simon_says wrote:

Oh, you said something once dozens of pages ago and I'm supposed to track it?

Yes, actually, it's called due diligence and you have to do it when you want to attribute something to someone else.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Mar 2012, 11:30 pm

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

The issue that isn't being addressed is the ability for almost anyone to get away with murder. If you have a death grudge against someone all you have to do is confront them somewhere where there are no witnesses and make up a "self-defense" story claiming they were going to beat you unconscious if you hadn't shot them first.

It's actually a cost benefit equation.

On the one hand, you could claim that the law makes it slightly easier to get away with murder with a bogus self defense claim. Now people have been using bogus self defense claims with varying degrees of success since time immemorial, so the question really becomes "how much easier does the law make it?", and "does the law cause people to commit crimes they wouldn't have otherwise due to the belief they'll get away with it?".

On the other hand, you have people being falsely or maliciously prosecuted for defending themselves, and the law attempts to remedy that situation by providing a greater burden for the state to jump before it's allowed to file charges. Someone who's already been victimized by being targeted for violent crime should not be victimized again by the state and it's legal system, so there is a legitimate case to be made for these type of shield laws.

The question comes down to how many more people are getting away with murder (vs without the shield law) vs how many people are being rightfully protected from prosecution after defending themselves. Everyone is going to weigh things differently and come to different conclusions even when the same data is used, since people have different value systems and such. I, for example, place a greater value on not prosecuting the innocent than on punishing the guilty, so I'm weighted in favor of shield laws even without my other personal interests. Also, I don't think the average citizen is *quite* so ready to resort to homicide that the presence of one of these laws will tip them over to it, but that's my personal opinion. YMMV.

"Getting away with murder" is just the most extreme case. I'm more concerned with cases occupying more of the middle ground where someone who should have at least been charged with manslaughter gets off scot-free. People who use a weapon for self-defense should have to think about the consequences of using deadly force and have thought through possible scenarios before finding themselves in a specific situation. I don't think some crotchety yahoo should have the right to shoot an unarmed mentally ill homeless person who happens to stumble into their yard and ring their doorbell and then not face any charges. I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Mar 2012, 11:54 pm

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

But do you think deterrence is really effective in preventing the types of incidents you're referring to? I'm against the death penalty in part because I don't think it's effective as a deterrent, and I'm of similar opinion here. I just don't believe that of all the thoughts going through someone's head in a life or death situation, "will I be legally shielded by an SYG law if I pull the trigger?" will even occur.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

30 Mar 2012, 12:10 am

I can't put numbers to it but certainly many people who own guns keep up with news related to this kind of stuff.

When Joe Horn went outside and killed two unarmed burglars in Texas with his shotgun as they ran across his yard after exiting his neighbors house, he said to the dispatcher that they both knew that the laws had changed and that he could go outside and take care of it. The dispatcher urged him to stay inside as cops were arriving (and actually saw the shooting) but he didnt listen. When he went back in after shooting them the dispatcher flipped out and told him to put his gun on the ground. The cop outside was in plainclothes and he was obviously afraid that Horn would misread the situation.

I don;t know what that law is like there but either at the grand jury or trial level he was cleared and he seemed to expect that he would get away with it.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

30 Mar 2012, 12:30 am

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

It's extremely questionable that the cases I'm referring to were life or death and not some douchebag with too much bravado.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

30 Mar 2012, 12:31 am

simon_says wrote:

Exactly.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

30 Mar 2012, 12:48 am

Raptor wrote:

Barack Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon".
:roll:

That in itself was a goofy thing to say then he goes on into civil rights as if this is automatically a race thing.

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120323/NEWS01/303230044/Obama-had-son-he-d-look-like-Trayvon-

I think most parents with kids around the age of the president's kids know EXACTLY where he was coming from. I am flabbergasted at how people have misunderstood what, to me, was a simple statement of empathy.

I have a 14 year old and my thoughts go right to him when I hear anything about this story.

IMHO, there was nothing political or race related in his remarks. It was a simple and very personal observation.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

30 Mar 2012, 1:07 am

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

I'm not convinced deterrent is the overriding concept. Some actions are so serious they should exact a cost, even if that cost is no more than going to court and proving yourself justified. Killing another human being is one of them.

The problem to me in this situation is police feeling their hands were tied against even filing a charge. It trivializes what happened: that a teen doing no more than walking home from the store lost his life. The law needs to recognize the gravity of the situation and provide a process for resolution that can bring some sense of justice to the victim's family.

I've taught my kids that even when you hurt someone completely by accident, you take responsibility for that harm, and try to make it right. This law is acting like a free pass, to say no responsibility of any type is involved, and that is what I think makes it troubling. The law should allow for some process, for some accepting responsibility. It doesn't have to end up sending anyone to jail, it just has to make them take responsibility.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Mar 2012, 1:57 am

They didn't even run a tox screen on Zimmerman, but they tested Martin's corpse.

NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

30 Mar 2012, 9:06 am

So...since this guy gunned down a teenage kid on the street after stalking him in his car....I would consider him extremely dangerous. And, if I passed him in the street, I might have reason to think my safety was in jeopardy....I think it might even be reasonable to stand my ground and protect myself with lethal force so that I don't end up getting shot by this killer...

*cough*

_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

30 Mar 2012, 10:20 am

DW_a_mom wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

The deterrent angle is more geared towards deterring people who think they have the right to take justice into their own hands. If an unarmed thief breaks into my house at night and I own a gun I should have a right to draw my weapon and tell them to leave, especially if there are children or other vulnerable people in the house. I don't think I should have the right to shoot the thief in the back as he runs off and get off without a trial by claiming "self defense", no matter how much he stole from me.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

30 Mar 2012, 2:31 pm

marshall wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

At issue here is who and what people are going to believe. Regardless of whether an intruder has his back turned towards you or not, you can honestly (or dishonestly) say you had no idea what the guy's intentions were. There shouldn't normally be any way to prove you're lying or telling the truth either way, but if you're the one on trial or being questioned, they can't legally assume you're a liar. No evidence=no crime as far as the cops and prosecutors are concerned. Whether that is the case in reality is not even legally seen as relevant.

Now, is it fair to shoot someone trying to flee an armed and angry homeowner? No, but again a cop will have a more difficult time trying justify arresting you under those circumstances unless you come out and confess it. And even then it still may not be seen as a crime.

If a break-in happened during daylight hours, I would be more hesitant to shoot someone since there is at least the possibility that I could identify the perp. I'd shoot to kill only if I was threatened to the point I felt all my options were exhausted.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Mar 2012, 4:38 pm

LKL wrote:

They didn't even run a tox screen on Zimmerman, but they tested Martin's corpse.

Is this according to a news report? We all know just how reliable newspapers and t.v. reporting is. What is the official documentation of the case. What does it say.

ruveyn

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

30 Mar 2012, 4:46 pm

Ive read that since he wasnt arrested it's not procedure to get one, iirc. Martin was autopsied so it was standard procedure.

Some law enforcment types, as observers, noted that he sounds drunk or buzzed on the tapes and that it was unfortunate that he wasnt tested. When he got himself in trouble before it was when he was drinking. Ive read that one charge was expunged because he went for an alcohol course or some such thing. That aspect will remain a mystery.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

30 Mar 2012, 5:11 pm

AngelRho wrote:

marshall wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I'm not so concerned with punishing such people as much as creating a deterrent so innocent people don't wind up dead from their bullets.

If there's evidence the person was unarmed and killed outside the house there should be a trial. A person doesn't have the right personally issue the death penalty to the perpetrator of a property crime. That isn't justice. It's an act of barbarism. Unfortunately it looks like some right wingers do think they have the right to shoot and kill people for property crimes while calling it "self defense".

I also don't think the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is exactly the same when it's been proven that the person did if fact commit a homicide and the only question is whether it was justified under self-defense. Especially not when there's evidence the killing was not justified. Failure to even investigate trivializes life.

Page 7 of 13 [ 200 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

The other side of the Trayvon Martin story... Post Reply New Topic

The other side of the Trayvon Martin story...