greyhat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 562
- Reaction score
- 159
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
excuse me sir.. how do you know martin started the fight.?.. because zimmerman said so... dam i would say someone hit me first to if i was on trail for murder and no one saw what happened .. i would also say that the person told me they are going to kill me too...QUOTE]
Good point, however Z's case was supported by the fact that T's body did not show physical signs of a fight (ex gunshot wound); yet Z had multiple bruises and a broken nose. Therefore the reasonable doubt standard compelled the jury to adjudicate the case in his favor. It was a fairly technical adjudication.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Note in my post I mentioned disparity of force. ie a 280 lb man vs a 98 lb woman.No, size, age, apparent strength also can factor in.
I think there have been a few people found not-guilty who were in wheelchairs/disabled who have shot and killed someone harassing them who had not physically assaulted the disabled person. There are many factors as to what constitutes "reasonableness."
How much should we protect someone's right to follow you?
It is like the old saying your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. How much is one allowed to follow you before it becomes harrassment?
If you see a guy following some kid walking home from school do you wait until you see him grab the kid or do we just dismiss it as his legal right?
Hard questions and a very gray area.
What you are saying is there are too many people living in too small an area with too few resources/opportunities AKA "undersupply.Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.
This is not a matter of individuals making free will decisions in an environment so conducive.
This is a matter of two people caught up in a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs that thereby creates a collective neuroticism in the population resulting in boundary violations and suspicions that are compelled upon the minds of the inhabitants.
This is a systemic problem, solely.
No amount of searching for specific idiosyncratic culpability in the matter is of any value.
We need to focus on solving the causitive systemic problem before the number of such tragic events continues an even greater ascent rate than present.
Nothing whatsoever can be gained by polarizing with scapegoats.
Both Martin and Zimmerman are tragic victims of a systemic problem, the responsibility of the solution to which lies squarely with elected and appointed officials with the authorization to do something about it.
Yes yes we all know that 'inner cities' are the rats Plexiglas box and they are too many 'residents' in the box and the resulting Black on Black endemic violence is the result. What the 'social scientists' need to understand is the vast majority of the 'residents' are in no way interested in leaving. THAT is the reality no one is willing to address. The 'hood' is where they want to be. You could move every one out of the 'hood' and tear down the rat's nests AKA 'projects' and give every man women and child twenty grand to help them find a nice peaceful prosperous place to live and within a few years they would have turned downtown Kalispell into a ghetto.Your disconnect here implies, perhaps, that this statement was meant as a reply for someone else's post.
Again, you over-simplify, this time as a rationalization for your subsequent unjustified ad hominem.
You may find social science, and getting to the bottom of complex problems to create solutions that millions would cheer because tragedies were avoided, to be of little use in your ideology, but fortunately for the future of our people and our planet, there are those with a differing point of view.
What you are saying is there are too many people living in too small an area with too few resources/opportunities AKA "undersupply.
The problem with your argument, while basically an accurate appraisal of what things are like in every inner city in the world is this: You could bull-doze' down every inner city and move every inner city resident out to a nice town with lots of job opportunities and good schools etc etc and within five years each one of those nice little towns would have their own 'mini inner-city' to have to deal with.
I'll leave others to come to their own conclusions why this is so.
To believe otherwise is simply to continue to keep ones head up ones bum.
Under-supply of needs is addressed by bringing out- and in- sourced American jobs back to Americans.Yes yes we all know that 'inner cities' are the rats Plexiglas box and they are too many 'residents' in the box and the resulting Black on Black endemic violence is the result. What the 'social scientists' need to understand is the vast majority of the 'residents' are in no way interested in leaving. THAT is the reality no one is willing to address. The 'hood' is where they want to be. You could move every one out of the 'hood' and tear down the rat's nests AKA 'projects' and give every man women and child twenty grand to help them find a nice peaceful prosperous place to live and within a few years they would have turned downtown Kalispell into a ghetto.
Nope, and neither were the perscription meds in Martin's systom which made him prone to violent outbursts.This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Nope, and neither were the perscription meds in Martin's systom which made him prone to violent outbursts.
How much should we protect someone's right to follow you?
It is like the old saying your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. How much is one allowed to follow you before it becomes harrassment?
If you see a guy following some kid walking home from school do you wait until you see him grab the kid or do we just dismiss it as his legal right?
Hard questions and a very gray area.
That's right, my bad, FL isn't a medical Marijuana state. Martin's drugs were straight-up illegal. I stand corrected.Martin didn't take any prescription meds.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Yes it was wrong, in the hypothetical, for Martin to initiate violence.
I take issue with your question, however, because one can not say with certainty that he did. The only evidence we have is that he won a fight. We do not know how that fight started. I, for one, do not take the word of a man who incorrectly profiled and stalked an unarmed teenager, who nobody is disputing was just on his way home from the store. A man who had months to prepare his defence and was facing a long jail term.
I say again: I think the critical mistake made in the decision was the assumption that Trayvon Martin started the fight, or started it with no provocation other than being followed. I think it is very reasonable to assume that if the dead could testify, we would hear a different version of the incorrect assumption that Martin was the aggressor in the fight.
Winning a fight is not tantamount to starting a fight. I believe the judge made an error in law when the jury was instructed not to consider the events that lead up to the fight as justification for the melee.
Admitted profiling (I didn't see hear enough evidence for me to be convinced that he was in the act of a burglary) is not sufficient reason to infringe on a persons civil right to move about freely. Again: his defence was never that he 'just happened to follow him', it was that he intentionally and incorrectly followed him.
There was no profiling. Martin had bruises on his knuckles but was otherwise unmarked except for the gunshot wound. Zimmerman had numerous cuts and bruises on his face and head. Martin was the aggressor.eace
We don't have any way of knowing what happened before Trayvon ended up on top of Zimmerman. Winning a fight doesn't mean you started it. Being a bad fighter doesn't mean you didn't.
He had to have profiled Trayvon, or he wouldn't have followed him. It is very clear that Zimmerman incorrectly assumed that he was in pursuit of a criminal.
Neighborhood watch . . . watches. That's not profiling. There's no evidence that GZ fought at all. There's only evidence that he was attacked.eace
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.
There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.
It's not against the law. I just can't understand why the two of them couldn't communicate like human beings instead of fighting like they did.
The only thing I can figure is that M thought someone was after him for some reason and Rachael egged it on. That's more likely than Z starting the fight, given evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?