• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tracy Martin visits Congress, proposes victims disarmament act


So if you start something you give up your right to life? Is that what you are saying. The person just has to hope the other person doesn't kill them, and there is nothing they can do about it?
 
Mason66 said:
So if you start something you give up your right to life? Is that what you are saying. The person just has to hope the other person doesn't kill them, and there is nothing they can do about it?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. You can defend yourself, but you should be charged with manslaughter, because "defending yourself" doesn't necessitate deadly force. If you are to initiate a conflict, I think the very least you are responsible for is not carrying out that deadly force. The only exception to this rule, in my opinion, would be if the aggressor were able to prove that he defended himself in a way that were to clearly show unintentional deadly force, such as merely pushing the person back only to have them fall onto a fire hydrant and impale themselves.

To me, the whole reason manslaughter exists is for circumstances like this. It seems like our society has largely forgotten that taking a person's life is a situation which warrants scrutiny. And when there is scrutiny, the outcome is often unpredictable (such as the Cece McDonald case, which you seem to have no problem with for some reason).
 

What if you started something and the other guy pulls a knife or gun and he ends up dead. Should you be charged because you started the fight even though the other guy escalated it to a deadly match?

I didn't comment on any case in particular, so don't ascribe things to me that I didn't say.
 
 
Mustachio said:
Please correct me where my narrative was off, then.
Click to expand...
The following is what is wrong.

Mustachio said:
The men then attacked her and those with her. One of the men broke a bottle and smashed McDonald in the face with it, requiring stitches. She fought back, attacked him with a pair of scissors, and killed him.
Click to expand...


I had read that McDonald turned and confronted those who were using verbal insults. But that is besides the point.
It was a woman who hit her with a glass cutting her face. Not a guy, or the guy she stabbed.

On May 11, Molly Flaherty, the woman who allegedly smashed a glass on McDonald's face outside Schooner Tavern, was charged with second-degree assault with a deadly weapon and third-degree assault causing substantial bodily harm.
The Case of CeCe McDonald: Murder​


The fact is, she lied, and in doing so, blew her credibility.

On a June night in 2011, a group outside South Minneapolis’s Schooner Tavern reportedly accosted CeCe McDonald and her friends with a barrage of racist, anti-gay and transphobic abuse. McDonald, a young African-American transgender woman, objected.

Their argument escalated into a brawl. When it was over, McDonald needed eleven stitches. And a middle-aged, straight white man named Dean Schmitz lie dead.
The CeCe McDonald Story: Was She Fighting Back or Committing Murder?​

I just love how they gloss over McDonald's responsibility in the conflict, as just objecting.




During her initial questioning, McDonald told cops that she’d pulled a pair of fabric scissors out of her purse to scare off Schmitz when he came at her after the fight had seemed to have cooled down; when he rushed her, he ran into the scissors, she said. According to this first scenario, McDonald did kill Schmitz, but accidentally, and in self-defense.

Later, though, McDonald would write to the Star Tribune and tell the newspaper that this confession was a panicked mistake, made as she loyally tried to cover up for the unnamed friend who she says actually stabbed Schmitz. One of those present that night, McDonald’s boyfriend Larry Tyaries Thomas, would back her up on that theory. Thomas said that he tried to pull McDonald away from the argument when he saw that she was bleeding—and that, when he looked back, one of their friends was running from the scene. Thomas claimed that the friend later told them that he’d accidentally stabbed Schmitz when Schmitz fell on the blade he was carrying (the murder weapon has never been found). Another friend, Zavawn Smith, claimed to have recorded a video of this unidentified accidental killer’s confession on his cell phone.

But McDonald later reverted to the self-defense claim. Police, though, already had the theory that prosecutors would push. A witness told them that Schmitz had grabbed McDonald to pull her away from a woman during the fight, then backed away, saying “You stabbed me.” The witness alleged that McDonald replied, “Yes, I did.” Prosecutors didn’t think this scenario sounded like self-defense; they mounted a case against McDonald.

The CeCe McDonald Story: Was She Fighting Back or Committing Murder?​



I understand the multiple reasons why someone may want to take a plea.
Matters not.
Let me show you how this works. ~ Are you suggesting that McDonald lied to the court during allocution?


Had this occurred in a state with a similar SYG statute, McDonald may have walked.
But based on the above underlined account, maybe not. Especially since McDonald had already lied.

CeCe McDonald took the plea (the transcript can be read here.) To do so she had to concede that she’d acted unreasonably in using scissors as a dangerous weapon against an unarmed man, and give up claims of self-defense or accidental harm.
The CeCe McDonald Story: Was She Fighting Back or Committing Murder?​


Consider what the Judge said.
At the plea hearing, Judge Daniel C. Moreno told McDonald that because she had a weapon and Schmitz was unarmed, "the law requires that you have a duty to handle that weapon in such a way as to avoid…anyone being harmed."
The Case of CeCe McDonald: Murder​

Like I said; "Had this occurred in a state with a similar SYG statute, McDonald may have walked."



I find that statement to be absurd.

As I have already stated, there is a need for a reasonable belief.
You are acting like a case wouldn't have any evidence. And that is just absurd.
 
Last edited:
CHuDWah said:
So, what's the guy in the blue shirt and the red shoes? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Frack if I know, ask him.


I never said they were bangers.
 

The blogosphere must be an oxygen deprived environment.


Well, there ya go... How can anyone refute the Conservative Tree House? Obvious experts in gang-signs and their use in cultures they can't even imagine the social complexities of...

And I applaud anyone that wants to remove themselves from and grow beyond their past mistakes.

btw... his suggested amendment is absolute common sense. He didn't even ask that the law be repealed... just a common sense change.
 
Occam's Razor said:
btw... his suggested amendment is absolute common sense. He didn't even ask that the law be repealed... just a common sense change.
Click to expand...
No it is not.
 

I disagree. And I'll preface the following hypothetical by saying that although it bears similarity to Z-M, that particular equine is deceased as far as I'm concerned. It is not my intent to thrash it. So...

I punch you in the nose. You proceed to beat the crap out of me. I scream for help and beg for mercy, neither of which is forthcoming. I pull out my gun and shoot you. I suppose it could be argued you became the aggressor when you didn't disengage after I indicated my desire to do so. Nevertheless, I think I still should bear some responsibility since my action as the initial aggressor led to your death. Maybe it's manslaughter rather than murder but it's not SYG/self defense either.
 
CHuDWah said:
I think I still should bear some responsibility since my action as the initial aggressor led to your death.
Click to expand...
No you did not.
My failure to disengage when you stopped your assault did.

That said.
Where is your reasonable belief of fear of loss of life or great bodily harm?
 
Excon said:
Where is your reasonable belief of fear of loss of life or great bodily harm?
Click to expand...

I took it as given that our battery of each other inspired that belief in both of us.


Excon said:
My failure to disengage when you stopped your assault did.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, you're considering the scenario as two separate incidents. At first, I'm the aggressor until I express the desire to withdraw. At that point, you lose your "reasonable belief" and become the aggressor by using force beyond that necessary to defend yourself. I still have my reasonable belief, probably more so, and I'm therefore justified in shooting you to defend myself. Since you're dead, I probably won't even be liable for battery in punching you. Yet you wouldn't be dead if I hadn't. That may be legal but I don't think it's moral.
 
Tracy Martin going on tour with a crying, self pity party doesn't sit well with, particularly since I believe the only person more responsible for TM's death is the apathy of his father. In his view the thing to do with a highly troubled teenage son on his next suspension from school is to give him money to wander the streets at night and to use him for a babysitter so you and your next significant other can go out on the town.
 

Do we know the father gave him the money?

Martin had $40.00 on him which seems like a lot for a teenager to carry on him, to buy skittles and a drink.
 
CHuDWah said:
I took it as given that our battery of each other inspired that belief in both of us.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just don't see any activity in what you put forth to suggest their is any reasonable belief of fear of loss of life or great bodily harm to respond with deadly force.




No one has the right to act out in aggression against another except in defense of self of another.
No one has the right to continue aggression against anyone if they have stopped responding in kind. That is what it is.

In a mutual confrontation once the other stops, then so must the other. If that person does not cease and desist, they are putting their life at risk.
 
Mason66 said:
Do we know the father gave him the money?

Martin had $40.00 on him which seems like a lot for a teenager to carry on him, to buy skittles and a drink.
Click to expand...

40 bucks isn't a lot of money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.