I don't need to, read the case and other information, the kid was 6-1 and 180. The picture shows that he's well muscled.
That's well muscled? Looks like a pretty typical kid to me.
Either way, my point was to call out Cowperson's intent in posting those pictures. It's interesting, victim blaming doesn't seem to be given a second thought here, but pop into that men's rights thread from a couple days ago and you'll see any insinuation of victim blaming pounced upon. I'm not even arguing that his past shouldn't be considered, just seems curious that the reactions are so divergent.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
The evidence of what Zimmerman said? Why would someone on the phone with 911, after profiling someone, say "hey I profiled this kid in my neighbourhood" or "hey, there's this black kid walking around and he looks out of place"
It doesn't happen that way.
Either way, there are obviously two sides of thought on this story that will never agree. I don't buy what Zimmerman was saying and some do. None of us will ever know. All we know is that he initiated a confrontation that resulted in someone dying and as a result, morally, I believe he should be in jail, but thanks to a ####ed up law, it's all good. If he would have stayed in his car and called the police, the kid would be alive, and that's the bottom line.
Just to be clear, are you referring to the stand your ground law or self-defence as a justification?
Just to be clear, are you referring to the stand your ground law or self-defence as a justification?
Not sure which he's referring to, but one of the big issues I have with this is the fact that he was able to create the situation by confronting someone while armed, and then when he had the tables turned on him he's allowed to use his gun and justify it as self defense. Self defense, at least as a justification for homicide, should go out the window when you actively pursue a confrontation, especially when you've been explicitly instructed by the police to not do so.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Last edited by valo403; 07-16-2013 at 03:20 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Not sure which he's referring to, but one of the big issues I have with this is the fact that he was able to create the situation by confronting someone while armed, and then when he had the tables turned on him he's allowed to use his gun and justify it as self defense. Self defense should go out the window when you actively pursue a confrontation, especially when you've been explicitly instructed by the police to not do so.
This is exactly it. The counter of "Martin jumped him after" doesn't absolve him in my eyes. He initiated, and ended up shooting someone. That deserves jail to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jar_e
Just to be clear, are you referring to the stand your ground law or self-defence as a justification?
I feel that when you initiate a confrontation, the self-defense justification goes out the window. If Martin had opened his passenger door, jumped in and started pounding on him, that would be a totally different story.
This is exactly it. The counter of "Martin jumped him after" doesn't absolve him in my eyes. He initiated, and ended up shooting someone. That deserves jail to me.
I feel that when you initiate a confrontation, the self-defense justification goes out the window. If Martin had opened his passenger door, jumped in and started pounding on him, that would be a totally different story.
That's simply not the way it works.
You also have to define initiate. A neighbourhood watch captain questioning a stranger on private property does not equate to initiating a physical confrontation. Certainly not to the extend that you can break someone's nose and continue to assault them while they are on the ground.
Even if he had initiated a physical confrontation, that does not give you a right to pummel somoene. You're expected to stop once the threat has been ended. And by threat, it has to be imminent harm. Someone following you, in itself, does not count as a threat that you are allowed to respond with physical violence too. Particularly when you are a guest on private property.
Perhaps Zimmerman did more than simply follow Martin, but, if that's the case, it still has to be proven in a court of law.
Edit: To put it more simply, there always has to be some proportionality in response. If one party escalates things the other has the right to self-defence regardless of who the initial aggressor was.
Last edited by blankall; 07-16-2013 at 03:27 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Not sure which he's referring to, but one of the big issues I have with this is the fact that he was able to create the situation by confronting someone while armed, and then when he had the tables turned on him he's allowed to use his gun and justify it as self defense. Self defense should go out the window when you actively pursue a confrontation, especially when you've been explicitly instructed by the police to not do so.
How exactly does "pursuing a confrontation" by following a person and then turning back to your vehicle justify breaking that person's nose and then repeatedly slamming his head against the ground? Based on what we know, I am failing to see what it was in Zimmerman's actions that justifiably provoked that kind of response from Martin.
This is exactly it. The counter of "Martin jumped him after" doesn't absolve him in my eyes. He initiated, and ended up shooting someone. That deserves jail to me.
I feel that when you initiate a confrontation, the self-defense justification goes out the window. If Martin had opened his passenger door, jumped in and started pounding on him, that would be a totally different story.
True. And I am not saying that Zimmerman deserved to get the beat down, but if I was approached by some neighbourhood watch vigilante and questioned about my purpose for being there, I think I would feel a little bit of rage. I know I can control it, but if it happened all the time, I think eventuallly there could be a straw that breaks the camel's back. I don't know that it did happen a lot, but racism is real and I wouldn't doubt it if Martin had experienced this before.
To turn it around on the average middle aged white guy, there was a story in the paper a few years ago about a an older white male who went to the park on a nice day to relax. He was confronted by women there with kids because they thought it was suspicious that he was there by himself, without kids and wearing sunglasses. They assumed on his profile that he was probably a pedo and made him so uncomfortable he left.
To me, that is no different than what Zimmerman and his fellow nighbourhood watch losers do. Eventually, someone was bound to knock him out.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
That's well muscled? Looks like a pretty typical kid to me.
Either way, my point was to call out Cowperson's intent in posting those pictures. It's interesting, victim blaming doesn't seem to be given a second thought here, but pop into that men's rights thread from a couple days ago and you'll see any insinuation of victim blaming pounced upon. I'm not even arguing that his past shouldn't be considered, just seems curious that the reactions are so divergent.
At the time of his death he was 6-0 180 pounds this was in the police report. that's pretty well proportioned. We have prospects that are that tall and weigh less.
Where the hell am I or even cow victim blaming, the sentiment is that Zimmerman was overmatched in a physical encounter.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
You also have to define initiate. A neighbourhood watch captain questioning a stranger on private property does not equate to initiating a physical confrontation. Certainly not to the extend that you can break someone's nose and continue to assault them while they are on the ground.
Even if he had initiated a physical confrontation, that does not give you a right to pummel somoene. You're expected to stop once the threat has been ended. And by threat, it has to be imminent harm. Someone following you, in itself, does not count as a threat that you are allowed to respond with physical violence too. Particularly when you are a guest on private property.
Perhaps Zimmerman did more than simply follow Martin, but, if that's the case, it still has to be proven in a court of law.
Edit: To put it more simply, there always has to be some proportionality in response. If one party escalates things the other has the right to self-defence regardless of who the initial aggressor was.
I think we know the way it works, at least most of us, what I'm saying is that I don't like it. If you initiate a confrontation while armed you should not get the benefit of pleading self defense when you kill someone with that weapon, or at the very least should have the onus put on you to prove the need to use deadly force, rather than being placed on the state.
And someone following you can certainly be responded to with physical violence in certain circumstances. You are not required to wait for someone to attack you.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
How exactly does "pursuing a confrontation" by following a person and then turning back to your vehicle justify breaking that person's nose and then repeatedly slamming his head against the ground? Based on what we know, I am failing to see what it was in Zimmerman's actions that justifiably provoked that kind of response from Martin.
Well first of all 'what we know' is Zimmerman's version of events, so take it with a grain of salt. A very large grain. At the very least Zimmerman was instructed not to confront Martin and decided to do so anyways, while armed. I'm not buying that this guy with the gun in his waistband and hero complex simply wandered over and asked a couple of questions then strolled back to his car.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Well first of all 'what we know' is Zimmerman's version of events, so take it with a grain of salt. A very large grain. At the very least Zimmerman was instructed not to confront Martin and decided to do so anyways, while armed. I'm not buying that this guy with the gun in his waistband and hero complex simply wandered over and asked a couple of questions then strolled back to his car.
Out of curiosity and with respect, why are you willing to believe a theory that's not backed by what came out in court?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
At the time of his death he was 6-0 180 pounds this was in the police report. that's pretty well proportioned. We have prospects that are that tall and weigh less.
Where the hell am I or even cow victim blaming, the sentiment is that Zimmerman was overmatched in a physical encounter.
So it's just a coincidence that Cow chose to post pictures of him smoking and acting trying to look tough for the camera? He could have posted just the one that you re-posted to make his point on his size (although I still don't see the point, if he's 6-0 (or 6-1, you seem to go back and forth) 180 in the record why the pictures? And in particular, why the additional pictures?
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Out of curiosity and with respect, why are you willing to believe a theory that's not backed by what came out in court?
Why would I believe a theory presented by nobody but the accused? Only Zimmerman knows the truth, and I doubt the accuracy of his account, especially when sanitizing it helps keep him out of prison.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
So it's just a coincidence that Cow chose to post pictures of him smoking and acting trying to look tough for the camera? He could have posted just the one that you re-posted to make his point on his size (although I still don't see the point, if he's 6-0 (or 6-1, you seem to go back and forth) 180 in the record why the pictures? And in particular, why the additional pictures?
6 foot in the police report, and the picture shows that he wasn't a tiny skinny kid. He was pretty adult proportioned.
I got the 6-1 from a news page and decided to look for the autopsy reports and the police report, the police report stated the actual height and weight, so my bad for some lazy research.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Why would I believe a theory presented by nobody but the accused? Only Zimmerman knows the truth, and I doubt the accuracy of his account, especially when sanitizing it helps keep him out of prison.
fair enough.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Well first of all 'what we know' is Zimmerman's version of events, so take it with a grain of salt. A very large grain. At the very least Zimmerman was instructed not to confront Martin and decided to do so anyways, while armed. I'm not buying that this guy with the gun in his waistband and hero complex simply wandered over and asked a couple of questions then strolled back to his car.
We don't know that at all.
The 9/11 call has Zimmerman being told not to pursue and then responding "okay". Zimmerman says that Martin ran away. You can hear a the sound of a walking cell phone (wind hitting the receiver), then when they ask him to stop, that sound ends a few moments later. You can clearly hear in the 911 call that Zimerman is not running.
We don't even know if Zimmerman asked Martin any questions. There is a total gap in evidence between the time Zimmerman ended the 911 call and witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
