Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

I think its time for a watch who watches the neighbourhood watch!

Who watches the neighborhood watch?

 

[BigDug13]

"Lock him up for a million zillion years" is hyperbole. Jokes like that just serve to trivialize rape. Not cool.

Doesn't it kinda do the opposite? By wishing a murderer to be raped, you are equating rape to "an eye for an eye" scenario, elevating rape to be equal to murder.

 

[PROSTHETIC]

Please, read the whole post or don't comment on it. I spent too much time to have someone grab a quote from skimming a few paragraphs.

- Zimmerman had a gun (Legal), was "observing" his neighborhood (Legal)
- Zimmerman thought the kid was suspicious (Racism? Legal)
- Zimmerman ignored the suggestion to wait for police (Dumb, not advised..but LEGAL)

You can not argue that anything above was illegal. You can argue that he's a vigilante douchebag, that's perfectly reasonable. Do I think Zimmerman should be convicted of wrong doing? Absolutely. Do I think he WILL be convicted and jailed? Yes, and I'll try to explain why.

I'll go from the end and work back. Zimmerman, 20-something year old, killed a kid, 17, after getting into a scuffle and CLAIMED it was self defense. Well lets look at the Florida statutes concerning the use of force.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Zimmerman can use force, NOT deadly force, if Martin was going to beat him up. Even if Martin unlawfully punched Zimmerman for being a racist ass, Zimmerman still can't use deadly force. BUT WAIT there's more to that statute.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Zimmerman, 20's, had to believe that a 17 YEAR OLD KID was going to either KILL him or inflict GREAT bodily harm on him in order to use deadly force. Can Zimmerman actually tell a jury that a 17 year old kid was going to punch him to death or otherwise inflict great bodily harm? Unless Zimmerman is physically disabled I doubt a jury would believe that. By the way, we can ignore section 776.013 in the quote because that's Home Protection and doesn't apply.

Looks bad for Zimmerman. Here's what the statute says about aggressors.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Zimmerman isn't justified in using deadly force if he initially provokes the use of force UNLESS he believes Martin could kill or inflict great bodily harm and Zimmerman couldn't manage to escape or convince Martin to stop an assault. So whether he was or wasn't the aggressor, he STILL has to convince a jury he couldn't get away from a 17 year old.

Ugh. What if Zimmerman claims Martin reached for his gun? The Orlando Sentinel reports the Martin family's lawyer said that Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun. Maybe they think Zimmerman might try say Martin reached for the gun or that they struggled for the gun and it accidentally went off. It's a stretch but that could be Zimmerman's only real chance to convince a jury he was in grave danger. Doesn't matter, I still think he'll be convicted.

 

[Gattsu25]

Holy shit.

So let me get this straight: this guy has no legal authority whatsoever to order anyone--the furthest extent that the law allows this guy do is to observe and report. And despite this:

1. He nonchalantly ignore the "suggestion" from the officers of the law, the party that actually have legal power to order, inquire, and arrest, and decide to engage Mr. Martin anyway? Even if he assume Mr. Martin is doing a suspicious activity (although I have no idea how just walking on your own neighborhood can constitute as "suspicious"), he basically has no legal right to do what he did, correct?

2. The fact has been cleared that Mr. Zimmermen engaged Mr. Martin first even though he has no business doing so from a legal standpoint, correct? And this while carrying a gun?

This when combined with the "they always get away" strongly, strongly suggest that Mr. Zimmermen approached Mr. Martin with a hostile intent. Not necessarily hostile in a "I'm gonna shoot you" kind of way, but hostile in a "Hey you criminal scum" even though Mr. Martin did not do anything that might suggest him as a criminal other than... taking a walk in his own neighborhood.......???

So many red flags, so many WTF, and even after this event ended with a dead young man, Mr. Zimmermen is still allowed to enjoy full freedom?

That's really, really, really fucked up.

That's an exceedingly accurate portrayal.

 

[squidyj]

Who watches the neighborhood watch?

We're getting into some fractal shit here.

 

[methane47]

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/357241/MMA-fighter-moonlights-as-costumed-superfighter-on-Seattle-streets/

You can't go around pepper spraying people because you think they are fighting," said Seattle police

Black Guy breaks up a fight and pepper sprays some white folk causing trouble
ARRESTED!!

White Guy goes up to a single person that wasn't causing trouble before hand and shoots them.
SELF DEFENSE!! NO ARREST

 

[Spat_triate]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Am i reading this right? The shooter is walking around free based on him saying it was self defense? Considering the young black victim only had fucking skittles in his pocket is this even a defensible stance?

 

[DY_nasty]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Am i reading this right? The shooter is walking around free based on him saying it was self defense? Considering the young black victim only had fucking skittles in his pocket is this even a defensible stance?

Mr. Zimmerman is great guy tho

 

[Zoramon089]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Am i reading this right? The shooter is walking around free based on him saying it was self defense? Considering the young black victim only had fucking skittles in his pocket is this even a defensible stance?

Those black people...they're good at improvising

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Those black people...they're good at improvising

One time I beat up a guy using a single Bugle.

 

[echoshifting]

Mr. Zimmerman is great guy tho

Well, we know he's a great shot
Nothing but the facts people

 

[MIMIC]

*reads article*

@_@. Seeks arrest? That man should be tried, convicted, and set to prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Sanjuro]

Every time I pop in to read this thread, I keep thinking George Zimmer killed the kid.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Zimmerman, 20's, had to believe that a 17 YEAR OLD KID was going to either KILL him or inflict GREAT bodily harm on him in order to use deadly force. Can Zimmerman actually tell a jury that a 17 year old kid was going to punch him to death or otherwise inflict great bodily harm? Unless Zimmerman is physically disabled I doubt a jury would believe that. By the way, we can ignore section 776.013 in the quote because that's Home Protection and doesn't apply.

OBVIOUSLY, you've never taken a high-velocity skittle to the eye.

that's grievous if I ever did see it. who would have paid for Mr. Zimmerman's medical bills?!!? YOU? I think not.

 

[Neuromancer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Am i reading this right? The shooter is walking around free based on him saying it was self defense? Considering the young black victim only had fucking skittles in his pocket is this even a defensible stance?

Well it helps his story that he had blood on his face and the back of his head, and a witness saw the other guy on top of him punching him in the head.

 

[The Lamonster]

One time I beat up a guy using a single Bugle.

"Officer, the black man had Bugle fingers. I obviously had no choice but to protect myself."

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Well it helps his story that he had blood on his face and the back of his head, and a witness saw the other guy on top of him punching him in the head.

As has been said (or should be said), simply getting beat up by one guy is not considered "grievous bodily harm" for which discharge of a firearm is warranted. Now if he was jumped by several guys, that's different. but one on one vs a guy with skittles...

 

[Neuromancer]

As has been said (or should be said), simply getting beat up by one guy is not considered "grievous bodily harm" for which discharge of a firearm is warranted. Now if he was jumped by several guys, that's different. but one on one vs a guy with skittles...

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that helps his story.

Would a jury convict a guy for murder for this? I doubt it.

 

[echoshifting]

Would a jury convict a guy for murder for this? I doubt it.

Everything depends on that call imho.

 

[Mushroom021]

See some people take their neighborhood watch jobs way to serious, he had a gun?!

 

[Neuromancer]

Everything depends on that call imho.

Yeah although the call may not indicate who was the first one to get physical.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well it helps his story that he had blood on his face and the back of his head, and a witness saw the other guy on top of him punching him in the head.

You're walking home in your gated community when a suspicious man who you've noticed has been following you home from the convenience store approaches you with his hand on his side holding something near his belt buckle (possibly a gun in its holster? A knife? ). Says some things to you that make him sound not too friendly ("What do you think you're doing here?" "You picked the wrong neighborhood to show up in"), that sort of thing. What would you do?

The cops know that Zimmerman was following the kid for some time and approached him (armed), in defiance of the dispatcher's advice.

He should be placed under arrest for manslaughter at the very least, pending further investigation which may upgrade the charges to murder.

There is reasonable suspicion to believe that a fight was initiated by Zimmerman and ended by him using deadly force. If you bring a gun to a fight you start, and end up using the gun, I would not call that justifiable self-defense. It's probably not enough to charge him with murder, but criminally negligent homicide? Definitely. I can't believe he's not even arrested.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that helps his story.

Would a jury convict a guy for murder for this? I doubt it.

Voluntary Manslaughter or Second Degree Murder.

Yes, I believe a jury would convict.

Getting punched by a single man in a scuffle that YOU provoked by stalking and harassing him does not give you a free pass to shoot and ultimately kill them if he reacts poorly/fearfully and starts laying fingers to your cheeks. Hell no.

 

[Azih]

Cool. If I want to murder someone legally all I have to do is lure them to Florida, pick a fight with them, shoot them, and claim self defense.

Edit: Or would that only work if I was white and my target was not?

 

[Cat Party]

As has been said (or should be said), simply getting beat up by one guy is not considered "grievous bodily harm" for which discharge of a firearm is warranted. Now if he was jumped by several guys, that's different. but one on one vs a guy with skittles...

You're just flat out wrong here. There are no hard rules, but you can be justified in shooting someone if they are beating the shit out of you. Certainly, pounding you in the head repeatedly can rise to that level. You cannot say either way based on the info whether the guy was justified.

Didn't we have a thread recently where a kid stabbed a supposed bully to death after getting punched once or twice, and GAF's majority opinion was that it was ok? Here, we have one guy possibly getting wailed on in the head repeatedly, and GAF doesn't care because the guy getting beat up may have been a racist.

 

[GaimeGuy]

You're just flat out wrong here. There are no hard rules, but you can be justified in shooting someone if they are beating the shit out of you. Certainly, pounding you in the head repeatedly can rise to that level. You cannot say either way based on the info whether the guy was justified.

Didn't we have a thread recently where a kid stabbed a supposed bully to death after getting punched once or twice, and GAF's majority opinion was that it was ok? Here, we have one guy possibly getting wailed on in the head repeatedly, and GAF doesn't care because the guy getting beat up may have been a racist.

apples and oranges.

 

[Woody Invincible]

Cool. If I want to murder someone legally all I have to do is lure them to Florida, pick a fight with them, shoot them, and claim self defense.

Edit: Or would that only work if I was white and my target was not?

It's definitely a great start apparently.

 

[Mr. Patch]

You're just flat out wrong here. There are no hard rules, but you can be justified in shooting someone if they are beating the shit out of you. Certainly, pounding you in the head repeatedly can rise to that level. You cannot say either way based on the info whether the guy was justified.

Didn't we have a thread recently where a kid stabbed a supposed bully to death after getting punched once or twice, and GAF's majority opinion was that it was ok? Here, we have one guy possibly getting wailed on in the head repeatedly, and GAF doesn't care because the guy getting beat up may have been a racist.

Personally, I don't care because I'm pretty sure an unarmed 140-pound (according to a Miami Herald story), 17-year-old would feel threatened by a grown man (who was armed with a gun) following him around at night.

 

[Cat Party]

apples and oranges.

I don't think it is. I think that's a cop out to avoid facing the truth about how we perceive these things. I think people tend to decide whether the victim was sympathetic and then work backwards.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Personally, I don't care because I'm pretty sure an unarmed 140-pound (according to a Miami Herald story), 17-year-old would feel threatened by a grown man (who was armed with a gun) following him around at night.

Not to mention the fact that the guy got out and approached him near his home... likely with his hand by his gunholster since he thought he was "suspicious"

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I don't think it is. I think that's a cop out to avoid facing the truth about how we perceive these things. I think people tend to decide whether the victim was sympathetic and then work backwards.

when the victim is 17, a buck 40, going to the corner store and armed with skittles and Arizona...only to be stalked by a stranger who decides to confront him in under the cover of darkness against the advisement of police...yes, we're going to fucking work backwards.

 

[echoshifting]

I think the real sticking point for a lot of people - myself included - is whether or not the guy legally had the right to get out of his car and approach the kid. And to me the question there is - was he getting out of his car with intent to do bodily harm? I believe the answer is yes, but unfortunately there's no way to know for sure...so we are left to speculate.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You're just flat out wrong here. There are no hard rules, but you can be justified in shooting someone if they are beating the shit out of you. Certainly, pounding you in the head repeatedly can rise to that level. You cannot say either way based on the info whether the guy was justified.

Didn't we have a thread recently where a kid stabbed a supposed bully to death after getting punched once or twice, and GAF's majority opinion was that it was ok? Here, we have one guy possibly getting wailed on in the head repeatedly, and GAF doesn't care because the guy getting beat up may have been a racist.

Not only might have been racist, but was the instigator in the confrontation. Called 911 and was advised to not confront the kid but chose to anyway because he's a grizzled veteran of the neighborhood watch and was tired of watching the criminals "all get away". It's just sickening that a grown man can stalk a kid like that, instigate him, and then when he is apparently getting his ass kicked, pull out this gun he has and just kill the kid.

 

[Onemic]

You're just flat out wrong here. There are no hard rules, but you can be justified in shooting someone if they are beating the shit out of you. Certainly, pounding you in the head repeatedly can rise to that level. You cannot say either way based on the info whether the guy was justified.

Didn't we have a thread recently where a kid stabbed a supposed bully to death after getting punched once or twice, and GAF's majority opinion was that it was ok? Here, we have one guy possibly getting wailed on in the head repeatedly, and GAF doesn't care because the guy getting beat up may have been a racist.

different situation, the bully started the conflict and has had a history of starting conflict with that kid. A better comparison would be if the kid was instead the one that initiated the conflict as well as ended up stabbing him to death. I highly doubt gaf would be in agreement with the issue, even with him being a bully.

 

[Neuromancer]

Voluntary Manslaughter or Second Degree Murder.

Yes, I believe a jury would convict.

Getting punched by a single man in a scuffle that YOU provoked by stalking and harassing him does not give you a free pass to shoot and ultimately kill them if he reacts poorly/fearfully and starts laying fingers to your cheeks. Hell no.

I'm really not so sure.

I do agree that he shouldn't have disobeyed the 911 operator and followed the guy, I also agree that he shouldn't have confronted the other guy. But I don't think those things invalidate the self defense claim (particularly if there was evidence that the other guy was the one who got physical first.)

I think the real sticking point for a lot of people - myself included - is whether or not the guy legally had the right to get out of his car and approach the kid. And to me the question there is - was he getting out of his car with intent to do bodily harm? I believe the answer is yes, but unfortunately there's no way to know for sure...so we are left to speculate.

Yes he was legally allowed to do so, although it certainly wasn't smart.

 

[Neuromancer]

This is interesting (not sure if it was posted already):

The 911 tapes haven't been released because it has critical information and detectives don't want it to influence the testimony of prospective witnesses, the police chief said.

The police chief said residents upset by the lack of an arrest so far should wait until the investigation is completed, as soon as next week. The State Attorney's Office will then decide whether to present it to a grand jury.

"I understand the emotions and the response from the community ... based on the limited information they have," Lee said. "We just hope they would allow us the time to conduct a thorough and fair investigation."

Makes sense to me.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4321810/family-wants-answers-in-fla-teens.html

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't think it is. I think that's a cop out to avoid facing the truth about how we perceive these things. I think people tend to decide whether the victim was sympathetic and then work backwards.

First of all, the issue here isn't that he's a racist, but that he's a vigilante irresponsibly going around picking fights and killing people. The person acting in self defense was the person he killed, the guy who was unarmed and wlaking home from the convenience store, minding his own business. If Zimmerman had died, given what we know of the situation, it would have been as a result of the kid acting in self defense. The kid's death is the result of Zimmerman escalating a situation, being irresponsible in refusing to yield to the police even though there was no imminent threat to anyone (and knowing that hte police would be there within minutes). The worst part is, Zimmerman used deadly force against someone who was acting in self defense. They both may have thought the other was acting suspicious, but Zimmerman was the aggressor who pursued and approached the person he was suspicious of.

Zimmerman was not the victim, he just got banged up a bit.



the first example involves bullying, which causes continuous severe psychological and physical trauma to someone, and that person finally lashing out at the source of that anguish. It's a result of a repeated, continuous string of abuse, and it involves the killer being the sympathetic figure, the victim of abuse.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

First of all, the issue here isn't that he's a racist, but that he's a vigilante irresponsibly going around picking fights and killing people. The person acting in self defense was the person he killed, the guy who was unarmed and wlaking home from the convenience store, minding his own business. If Zimmerman had died, given what we know of the situation, it would have been as a result of the kid acting in self defense. The kid's death is the result of Zimmerman escalating a situation, being irresponsible in refusing to yield to the police even though there was no imminent threat to anyone (and knowing that hte police would be there within minutes). The worst part is, Zimmerman used deadly force against someone who was acting in self defense. They both may have thought the other was acting suspicious, but Zimmerman was the aggressor who pursued and approached the person he was suspicious of.

Zimmerman was not the victim, he just got banged up a bit.



the first example involves bullying, which causes continuous severe psychological and physical trauma to someone, and that person finally lashing out at the source of that anguish. It's a result of a repeated, continuous string of abuse, and it involves the killer being the sympathetic figure, the victim of abuse.

well said.

 

[Vermillion]

Please, read the whole post or don't comment on it. I spent too much time to have someone grab a quote from skimming a few paragraphs.

- Zimmerman had a gun (Legal), was "observing" his neighborhood (Legal)
- Zimmerman thought the kid was suspicious (Racism? Legal)
- Zimmerman ignored the suggestion to wait for police (Dumb, not advised..but LEGAL)

You can not argue that anything above was illegal. You can argue that he's a vigilante douchebag, that's perfectly reasonable. Do I think Zimmerman should be convicted of wrong doing? Absolutely. Do I think he WILL be convicted and jailed? Yes, and I'll try to explain why.

I'll go from the end and work back. Zimmerman, 20-something year old, killed a kid, 17, after getting into a scuffle and CLAIMED it was self defense. Well lets look at the Florida statutes concerning the use of force.



Zimmerman can use force, NOT deadly force, if Martin was going to beat him up. Even if Martin unlawfully punched Zimmerman for being a racist ass, Zimmerman still can't use deadly force. BUT WAIT there's more to that statute.



Zimmerman, 20's, had to believe that a 17 YEAR OLD KID was going to either KILL him or inflict GREAT bodily harm on him in order to use deadly force. Can Zimmerman actually tell a jury that a 17 year old kid was going to punch him to death or otherwise inflict great bodily harm? Unless Zimmerman is physically disabled I doubt a jury would believe that. By the way, we can ignore section 776.013 in the quote because that's Home Protection and doesn't apply.

Looks bad for Zimmerman. Here's what the statute says about aggressors.



Zimmerman isn't justified in using deadly force if he initially provokes the use of force UNLESS he believes Martin could kill or inflict great bodily harm and Zimmerman couldn't manage to escape or convince Martin to stop an assault. So whether he was or wasn't the aggressor, he STILL has to convince a jury he couldn't get away from a 17 year old.

Ugh. What if Zimmerman claims Martin reached for his gun? The Orlando Sentinel reports the Martin family's lawyer said that Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun. Maybe they think Zimmerman might try say Martin reached for the gun or that they struggled for the gun and it accidentally went off. It's a stretch but that could be Zimmerman's only real chance to convince a jury he was in grave danger. Doesn't matter, I still think he'll be convicted.

Thanks for this. I still think we'd need to hear more of what the eyewitness saw, though.

 

[Reallink]

Please, read the whole post or don't comment on it. I spent too much time to have someone grab a quote from skimming a few paragraphs.

- Zimmerman had a gun (Legal), was "observing" his neighborhood (Legal)
- Zimmerman thought the kid was suspicious (Racism? Legal)
- Zimmerman ignored the suggestion to wait for police (Dumb, not advised..but LEGAL)

You can not argue that anything above was illegal. You can argue that he's a vigilante douchebag, that's perfectly reasonable. Do I think Zimmerman should be convicted of wrong doing? Absolutely. Do I think he WILL be convicted and jailed? Yes, and I'll try to explain why.

I'll go from the end and work back. Zimmerman, 20-something year old, killed a kid, 17, after getting into a scuffle and CLAIMED it was self defense. Well lets look at the Florida statutes concerning the use of force.



Zimmerman can use force, NOT deadly force, if Martin was going to beat him up. Even if Martin unlawfully punched Zimmerman for being a racist ass, Zimmerman still can't use deadly force. BUT WAIT there's more to that statute.



Zimmerman, 20's, had to believe that a 17 YEAR OLD KID was going to either KILL him or inflict GREAT bodily harm on him in order to use deadly force. Can Zimmerman actually tell a jury that a 17 year old kid was going to punch him to death or otherwise inflict great bodily harm? Unless Zimmerman is physically disabled I doubt a jury would believe that. By the way, we can ignore section 776.013 in the quote because that's Home Protection and doesn't apply.

Looks bad for Zimmerman. Here's what the statute says about aggressors.



Zimmerman isn't justified in using deadly force if he initially provokes the use of force UNLESS he believes Martin could kill or inflict great bodily harm and Zimmerman couldn't manage to escape or convince Martin to stop an assault. So whether he was or wasn't the aggressor, he STILL has to convince a jury he couldn't get away from a 17 year old.

Ugh. What if Zimmerman claims Martin reached for his gun? The Orlando Sentinel reports the Martin family's lawyer said that Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun. Maybe they think Zimmerman might try say Martin reached for the gun or that they struggled for the gun and it accidentally went off. It's a stretch but that could be Zimmerman's only real chance to convince a jury he was in grave danger. Doesn't matter, I still think he'll be convicted.

I don't know the specifics of the case, or whether the two actually got into a physical altercation, but these are foolish assumptions to make without actually seeing those involved. I'm pushing 30, 6', and weigh 135 lbs. A 17 year old "kid" could definitely beat my ass and curb stomp my head. Most 17yo "kids" are for all intents and purposes full grown adults, many of whom weight train and condition for sports. The black guy could have been a lineman on the football team for all we know. It's beyond stupid to say "oh, this guy was in his 20's, there's no way a 17yo posed a thread". You realize most of the gangbangers that go around beating people to death for fun are in their teens, right? And no, I'm not defending the (possibly) racist douche (I have no idea of the details of the case), I was simply correcting your weak argument.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I don't know the specifics of the case, or whether the two actually got into a physical altercation, but these are foolish assumptions to make without actually seeing those involved. I'm pushing 30, 6', and weigh 135 lbs. A 17 year old "kid" could definitely beat my ass and curb stomp my head. Most 17yo "kids" are for all intents and purposes full grown adults, many of whom weight train and condition for sports. This guy could have been a lineman on the football team for all we know.

140lbs lineman? say word?

It's beyond stupid to say "oh, this guy was in his 20's, there's no way a 17yo posed a thread". You realize most of the gangbangers that go around beating people to death are in their teens, right?

why are we talking about gangbangers?

 

[Roger Danish]

Doesn't it kinda do the opposite? By wishing a murderer to be raped, you are equating rape to "an eye for an eye" scenario, elevating rape to be equal to murder.

Rape--particularly in the context of a criminal justice system or armed conflict--is generally seen as a means of torture. Torture is often viewed as being a worse "penalty" than death (see the (supposed) ban on torture in the U.S. vs. the acceptance of the death penalty).

But really, what it does is legitimize "rape" as an extra-judicial penalty for criminal activity. That's the problem: we have developed a sort of "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" approach to violence in penal institutions. "It's funny" or "we don't care" simply because we assume that the people in prison are sub-human and thus deserve it.

I remember when the general public first started finding out about the prevalence of prison rape. People were horrified. It didn't take too long before we all shrugged our shoulders and decided, "Welp, you don't want to get raped, don't go to prison."

 

[Reallink]

140lbs lineman? say word?

why are we talking about gangbangers?

Like I said, I don't know any specifics about the case. Was the black guy 140lbs? I have no idea, I skimmed the first page and jumped to the last like everyone does. If Prosthetic had that information, he should have focused his argument on their size/weight rather than their age--as age really makes no sense. We're talking about gangbanger's because it's a verifiable example of "kids" that routinely beat people to death. I know you're trying to imply that was a racist remark, but gangbangers are a diverse group--commonly white, black, latino, and every color in between. It's also likely to be the white guys defense, that he thought the black kid was a gangbanger out on initiation or something.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Its a goddamn shame.

 

[Cat Party]

First of all, the issue here isn't that he's a racist, but that he's a vigilante irresponsibly going around picking fights and killing people. The person acting in self defense was the person he killed, the guy who was unarmed and wlaking home from the convenience store, minding his own business. If Zimmerman had died, given what we know of the situation, it would have been as a result of the kid acting in self defense. The kid's death is the result of Zimmerman escalating a situation, being irresponsible in refusing to yield to the police even though there was no imminent threat to anyone (and knowing that hte police would be there within minutes). The worst part is, Zimmerman used deadly force against someone who was acting in self defense. They both may have thought the other was acting suspicious, but Zimmerman was the aggressor who pursued and approached the person he was suspicious of.

Zimmerman was not the victim, he just got banged up a bit.



the first example involves bullying, which causes continuous severe psychological and physical trauma to someone, and that person finally lashing out at the source of that anguish. It's a result of a repeated, continuous string of abuse, and it involves the killer being the sympathetic figure, the victim of abuse.

You've literally made my point. And you don't even see it. You've made all these assumptions based on labels, so that you can happily justify coming to your conclusion without many facts. And you put your spin on the facts you do cite. Like the police say, wait before you make your judgments, as the story will come out soon once the investigation is complete. Why can't you wait to reach your conclusion?

In the bully thread, there was no evidence of a cycle of bullying. But they used that term when reporting on it, and people jumped on it, and made all the assumptions you made about how the kid was traumatized and all that. Turns out that wasn't really the case, and this was the first altercation between the two kids. But the dead kid was a "bully," so GAF was in favor of his death.

 

[Onemic]

You've literally made my point. And you don't even see it. You've made all these assumptions based on labels, so that you can happily justify coming to your conclusion without many facts. And you put your spin on the facts you do cite. Like the police say, wait before you make your judgments, as the story will come out soon once the investigation is complete. Why can't you wait to reach your conclusion?

In the bully thread, there was no evidence of a cycle of bullying. But they used that term when reporting on it, and people jumped on it, and made all the assumptions you made about how the kid was traumatized and all that. Turns out that wasn't really the case, and this was the first altercation between the two kids. But the dead kid was a "bully," so GAF was in favor of his death.

Like I said that comparison doesn't compare because the circumstances weren't the same. Something more comparable would be if the kid that killed the other kid, also initiated the confrontation like this neighborhood watch dude did. I'm pretty sure GAF's tone would be much different had that been the case.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Um guys, that dude might be racist yeah, but that's not the biggest problem with him.

The biggest problem is HE IS A MURDERER.

I cannot believe he is not at the very least on house arrest for now.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Like I said, I don't know any specifics about the case. Was the black guy 140lbs? I have no idea, I skimmed the first page and jumped to the last like everyone does. If Prosthetic had that information, he should have focused his argument on their size/weight rather than their age--as age really makes no sense. We're talking about gangbanger's because it's a verifiable example of "kids" that routinely beat people to death. I know you're trying to imply that was a racist remark, but gangbangers are a diverse group--commonly white, black, latino, and every color in between. It's also likely to be the white guys defense, that he thought the black kid was a gangbanger out on initiation or something.

So initiation was to go grab some skittles and tea?

 

[Jarlaxle]

This story is fucked up.

 

[Parch]

A pretty good argument for gun control.