Red Mosquito

clavian wrote:I also think it is beyond pathetic that this is being turned into some big race-motivated ordeal.

You honestly think race played no part in Zimmerman deciding to follow Martin?

Orpheus wrote:

clavian wrote:I also think it is beyond pathetic that this is being turned into some big race-motivated ordeal.

You honestly think race played no part in Zimmerman deciding to follow Martin?

If he did, does that make it a matter for the FBI and DOJ?

I don't know. But it's not like people are pulling the race thing out of their ass. What's killed me is the implication by some people that black=criminal=deserves to die. First and foremost, he was a child.

@SkitchP wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:What's the magic number of fists to the face while you're on your back before you are justified in using deadly force? 10? 20? Just before you lose consciousness?

So you accept Zimmerman's version of events without question? When would you ever do that with another murder suspect?

That's the thing though, you don't have to accept his version "without question." 1% question is enough. His version is plausible, and there is no concrete evidence to contradict it.. so finding him guilty with no actual proof would be nearly as tragic as the shooting itself.

Holy shit a rational thought.

i don't buy into the sensationalism going on with "it is fair game on black children" after the verdict and people claiming that this means Martin's life didn't matter. Zimmerman should still be faulted for entering the situation that lead to a death, but he was having the shit beat out of him by someone in a state that makes it legal to use a weapon to defend yourself. The verdict never was about "is it okay to kill black children?" Everyone knows that its not okay to kill any children.

What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

I don't doubt that the unapologetic racists might be celebrating the death of Martin. Others might be celebrating the blow to a politically motivated prosecution.

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

true, but you're still putting your own life in danger by doing something like that. Pick the wrong person and you're dead before you defend yourself. I just don't buy anybody getting charged up by this verdict to go out and perform "justified" killings.

its definitely about race


hmmm i wonder who used the only racial slur and it was entered into evidence

Mecca wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

true, but you're still putting your own life in danger by doing something like that. Pick the wrong person and you're dead before you defend yourself. I just don't buy anybody getting charged up by this verdict to go out and perform "justified" killings.

Yeah, I typed a half-thought there. What I meant was a high-profile success for self defense in an obvious manslaughter case gives killers something to mimic. It sets a precedent.

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

true, but you're still putting your own life in danger by doing something like that. Pick the wrong person and you're dead before you defend yourself. I just don't buy anybody getting charged up by this verdict to go out and perform "justified" killings.

Yeah, I typed a half-thought there. What I meant was a high-profile success for self defense in an obvious manslaughter case gives killers something to mimic. It sets a precedent.

it was a murder case. I'll mimic a lot of other people in saying that it should have been manslaughter all along, which I believe he would have been found guilty of, not that my opinion matters.

I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

.

I was mistaken then. My feelings mostly coincide with what Orpheus has been saying in this thread, anyway.

Birds in Hell wrote:I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

They added manslaughter as an option at the tail end of the trial. I agree with Mecca that it should have been manslaughter all along. I don't see how they thought they could prove murder 2.

--- wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

Your understanding is exactly correct.

Not so much. Stand your ground wasn't relevant. The prosecution and defense are on record saying it wasn't a factor. Despite the New York Times and others repeating it over and over, it has very little to do with this case. Some states such as New York make it very difficult to establish a self defense claim but most have standards more similar to Florida outside of the stand your ground and castle doctrines.

.

--- wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

--- wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

Your understanding is exactly correct.

Not so much. Stand your ground wasn't relevant. The prosecution and defense are on record saying it wasn't a factor. Despite the New York Times and others repeating it over and over, it has very little to do with this case. Some states such as New York make it very difficult to establish a self defense claim but most have standards more similar to Florida outside of the stand your ground and castle doctrines.

Spenno never mentioned SYG.

That's right. Though my knowledge of the case is pretty threadbare (one of the reasons I've stayed out of the thread), I'm aware that SYG had no practical relevance to the outcome. My (very rough) understanding is that Florida law doesn't require any weighing of proportionality in regards to a claim of self-defence, that was a great deal more crucial. I might be wrong, though.