Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Asking the inevitable question - are you black?

I was working on a helluva tan.

Cowperson

[kirant]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Asking the inevitable question - are you black?

Cows are black AND white. Duh.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by kirant

Cows are black AND white. Duh.

As I said in an earlier post, a black murder victim in America is 93% likely to have been killed by another black.

Most violent crime in America is intra-racial instead of inter-racial.

By being a holstein, both black and white, I'm not too safe in any neighbourhood.

Like these guys from Star Trek . . . .



Cowperson

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...prove that there wasn't a fight that left the shooter feeling that he needed to defend himself.

Even assuming there was a fight, if Zimmerman would have followed the instructions of 911 or his neighborhood watch program this would have never happened. You can't claim self defense when you chase someone down and end up shooting them, fight or not. That's a bad message to be sending everyone IMO.

[HPLovecraft]

Isn't there some kind of appropriate force law included in this "stand your ground" stuff? Is being punched in the nose (let's say you're attacked, for the argument's sake) adequate excuse for shooting to kill?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

But that's not self-defence, that's an escalation in your offence.

Murder needs some element of intent.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Murder needs some element of intent.

If you initiate a confrontation and as a result kill someone, that's murder to me. Legally at minimum it's manslaughter. It sure isn't self defence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Murder needs some element of intent.

Yes and no, it doesn't require an intent to kill but it does require an intent to commit the act that leads to the death. Typically it needs to be an intent to inflict something like 'grievous bodily harm' or to commit an act that shows 'depraved indifference towards human life'. It varies considerably by jurisdiction.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that this is going to be a really interesting study of the media's role in a event like this.

The Martin family is pissed at the media now because they're releasing details on the boys past.

I think its going to be the old story where the media is actually going to muddy the waters on this thing, and the family that thought that the media was under control and a useful tool is going to find that this isn't the case.

[HELPNEEDED]

Dead unarmed kid, who was shot.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, we get that, but don't we have to apply the same standard of "innocent til proven guilty" that we hear in every debate?

Or is it just when it suits us.

I think to be fair we have to wait for any investigation that's happening to conclude, from my understanding and I can't find it on the printed side there is a Grand Jury presentation next week.

I almost have no doubt that there will be charges filed against Zimmerman, but now if that happens the question will need to ask, is that a political exercise or an excercise in justice? Is it possible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial? Can they find a imparital jury with all of the media attention? Will a judge feel undue pressure?

I just want to play devils advocate here and get a sense.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, we get that, but don't we have to apply the same standard of "innocent til proven guilty" that we hear in every debate?

Or is it just when it suits us.

I think to be fair we have to wait for any investigation that's happening to conclude, from my understanding and I can't find it on the printed side there is a Grand Jury presentation next week.

I almost have no doubt that there will be charges filed against Zimmerman, but now if that happens the question will need to ask, is that a political exercise or an excercise in justice?

I don't know if anyone is against innocent until proven guilty. People are against "complete inaction", which is what has happened here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't know if anyone is against innocent until proven guilty. People are against "complete inaction", which is what has happened here.

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, but I do want to ask, are people angry at the police there because of inaction or they don't like the results.

I don't think that we have all the facts in this, and they're leaking out very slowly.

I personally think it sounds like the cops did a lousy job and jumped to conclusions based on very little work done, but the witnesses that are suppossedly coming forward aren't neccessarily supporting a charge.
What happens if the Grand Jury decides that charges aren't warranted, or if the DOJ investigation states that while the cops didn't do a good job their conclusions in terms of self defense were correct?

Its a real bubble atmospherre down there.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, we get that, but don't we have to apply the same standard of "innocent til proven guilty" that we hear in every debate?

Or is it just when it suits us.

I think to be fair we have to wait for any investigation that's happening to conclude, from my understanding and I can't find it on the printed side there is a Grand Jury presentation next week.

I almost have no doubt that there will be charges filed against Zimmerman, but now if that happens the question will need to ask, is that a political exercise or an excercise in justice? Is it possible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial? Can they find a imparital jury with all of the media attention? Will a judge feel undue pressure?

I just want to play devils advocate here and get a sense.

Innocent until proven guilty would be fine if this was going to a trial. If there was an investigation.

But, unless the news has changed dramatically on me in the last 48, there's nothing of that.

Sure there's a crowd that is always there that says, 'string him up'. There's always that crowd. Forget them.

The others are mad that there is no investigation, there is no chance to work out 'innocent or guilty'. And that's COMPLETELY justified.

The standard IS being applied fairly here. People just want a proper investigation.

That's the real problem. Oh, and the obvious need to repeal some pro gun laws, but that's a much bigger can o worms.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Innocent until proven guilty would be fine if this was going to a trial. If there was an investigation.

But, unless the news has changed dramatically on me in the last 48, there's nothing of that.

Sure there's a crowd that is always there that says, 'string him up'. There's always that crowd. Forget them.

The others are mad that there is no investigation, there is no chance to work out 'innocent or guilty'. And that's COMPLETELY justified.

The standard IS being applied fairly here. People just want a proper investigation.

That's the real problem. Oh, and the obvious need to repeal some pro gun laws, but that's a much bigger can o worms.

I'm on your side to an extent, maybe I'm looking at some not so inconsequential concerns.

I do agree with the changing of gun laws, but when you say its a big can of worms its a 40 billion ton can of worms. People on the streets shouldn't be carrying guns legallly or illegally unless they're cops or to an extent soldiers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm on your side to an extent, maybe I'm looking at some not so inconsequential concerns.

I do agree with the changing of gun laws, but when you say its a big can of worms its a 40 billion ton can of worms. People on the streets shouldn't be carrying guns legallly or illegally unless they're cops or to an extent soldiers.

Yup, I think we are on the same page as far as the guns go. And it is a discussion that is needed down there. But between the lobbies, the NRA, and a random selection of gun nuts, and the way the republicans pander to groups like them, it's so far gone it's going to be hard to do anything about it.

[nik-]

My big problem is that this guy was in a car and was told to not pursue and let the police handle it. He ignored this, initiated contact, apparently found out he was gonna get beat up, and so he shot a kid. The first two components alone should make it an easy decision that the self defence clause while "technically" applicable, if he legitimately believed a 17 year old kid was going to beat him to death, really isn't applicable to the intent of the law.

I have no problem if someone has a knife pulled on them in a mugging to blast someone, or if someone breaks into your house to shoot them. This is not the same.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yup, I think we are on the same page as far as the guns go. And it is a discussion that is needed down there. But between the lobbies, the NRA, and a random selection of gun nuts, and the way the republicans pander to groups like them, it's so far gone it's going to be hard to do anything about it.

Part of it is just a mentality thing. I've done online straw polling and most Americans (that I polled. I can't say whether or not they reflect the population's opinion) seem against adjustments to the Second Ammendment no matter what they're political stripes.

Even more unsual to me is the trend of crime in the US related to it. I don't have the numbers on me (I did this 3 years ago out and posted it once on a forum), but I did a firearm crime per gun in country calculation for all major countries. There was generally a negative correlation between % owning guns and firearm crime/gun ratecapita...which implies that almost every owner of a gun is perfectly good with it. The exception was the US, which led both in % of population with guns and firearms crimes/firearmcapita. It completely bucked the trend.

Of course, this was also done out of casual interest, so I'm not sure you can draw many results from it...especially when I can't remember the exact numbers!

EDIT - Found the post...it's capita, not firearm.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by kirant

Part of it is just a mentality thing. I've done online straw polling and most Americans (that I polled. I can't say whether or not they reflect the population's opinion) seem against adjustments to the Second Ammendment no matter what they're political stripes.

Fair enough, and I do believe that, it's a good point, but you can fix the laws in Florida and many other states without amending the second amendment.

Laws like the 'Stand Ground' law or whatever it's called, have gone way too far in one direction. They're the equivalent of the loopholes in the tax code. (which Americans also seem to want to keep)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yup, I think we are on the same page as far as the guns go. And it is a discussion that is needed down there. But between the lobbies, the NRA, and a random selection of gun nuts, and the way the republicans pander to groups like them, it's so far gone it's going to be hard to do anything about it.

I think beyond the different lobby groups, its a cultural thing now, America considers itself to be the last great fun culture and it percolates through their whole society.

You can't just walk in and start seizing guns, you need to change their identity.

You also have to consider that the U.S. is one of the larger port nations in the world with vast borders to the north and south, they have a huge illegal gun issue. I would almost feel safe in saying that the illegally distributed U.S. manufactured guns are far outweighed by the guns coming in from the middle east and asia.