Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by **Seth** » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:43 am

Tero wrote:As far as we know he said: What are you doing here?

That is what the jury will hear from known testimony.

And that justifies a violent attack how, exactly?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:13 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Tero wrote:Yes, I want the case to lead to repeal stand your ground and concealed carry.
You're out of luck. Zimmerman's lawyer has already decided not to ask for a "stand your ground" hearing, because his case is built on Zimmerman's acting in ordinary self defense. Once the other guy is on top of you bashing your head into the ground, you don't need "stand your ground" to show you couldn't retreat.

Tero wrote:Back to idiot George. Why didn't he state: hi, I'm George of community watch. Are you visiting someone here?
How do you know he didn't?

Does it seem to you that the folks that want Zimmerman strung up seem to think that "Stand Your Ground" means "shoot anyone who makes you nervous?" It seems on certain issues, including this one, otherwise skeptical rationalists devolve into shrill emotional appeals.

Yes, Zimmerman is probably a douchebag.
Yes, it seems weird that he would be just hanging out in the evening in his truck surveilling the neighborhood as a hobby.
Yes, he ought to have prudently stayed with his car, rather chase after the guy he thought was casing houses.

All that being said -- why would that mean he can't defend himself against an attack? If Martin were white, would people be granting him the right to attack a person who approached him and asked him "what are you doing here?"

Post by **Warren Dew** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:01 am

Judge rules that voice experts will not be allowed:

Two voice identification experts who suggested that unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin screamed for help before he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman will not be allowed to testify at his murder trial, the judge in the case has ruled....

The screams could be pivotal evidence and help identify who was the aggressor on the night of the February 2012 killing. Zimmerman's family and supporters claim the voice was his, while Martin's parents insist the voice belonged to their son.

Last year, an FBI expert said a voice analysis of the call was inconclusive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... 9P20130622

Post by **Tero** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:06 pm

Seth wrote:
Tero wrote:As far as we know he said: What are you doing here?

That is what the jury will hear from known testimony.
And that justifies a violent attack how, exactly?

We don't know the course of events. If M was aware that Z had a gun, he would have reacted.

Post by **Seth** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:24 pm

Tero wrote:
Seth wrote:
Tero wrote:As far as we know he said: What are you doing here?

That is what the jury will hear from known testimony.
And that justifies a violent attack how, exactly?
We don't know the course of events. If M was aware that Z had a gun, he would have reacted.

By violently attacking Z at a later time, after the initial contact? That sounds remarkably stupid to me. Besides, it's not illegal to possess a gun, or even to wear it openly in Florida on private property. Just because Z had a gun does not give M the right to attack him.

Post by **Tero** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:17 am

Apparently not. So it would be perfectly OK in FL to do whatever was needed to provoke a hot headed teen to physicaly attack you. Namecalling does not count. Then you pull out the gun at the last second.

Stupid law.

Post by **Seth** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:35 am

Tero wrote:Apparently not. So it would be perfectly OK in FL to do whatever was needed to provoke a hot headed teen to physicaly attack you. Namecalling does not count. Then you pull out the gun at the last second.

Stupid law.

Why are the rest of us obliged to be obsequious and deferential to "hot headed teens?"

Fuck that. As has been said many times, Zimmerman was doing what any citizen in any community is fully authorized to do: ask a stranger what they are doing in the area. It's called "Neighborhood Watch" and it's been a right of citizens since, oh, pretty much forever.

And being asked what you're doing is not and has never been legal justification for a violent and potentially deadly attack.

That being the case, the use of arms in self defense to stop such an attack has been lawful in the US oh, pretty much forever.

Post by **Tero** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:45 am

The stupid part is the shooting. You can only pull the trigger and kill the other guy. You could tazer him. But then there would be all that explaining. Much cleaner to shoot and come out a patriotic citizen I guess.

Post by **Seth** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:45 am

Tero wrote:The stupid part is the shooting. You can only pull the trigger and kill the other guy. You could tazer him. But then there would be all that explaining. Much cleaner to shoot and come out a patriotic citizen I guess.

He didn't have a Taser, he had a handgun. And if you're legally authorized to use deadly force in self-defense, then it's prudent to be armed with the most effective weapon known to man for close-quarters lethal self-defense: The modern handgun.

The point being that the choice is up to the individual, not the government, to decide what tools to use for lawful self-defense.

Oh, and have you ever even seen the amount of paperwork involved in a shooting versus a tazing? You might want to reconsider your statement so you don't look quite so foolish.

Post by **Tero** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:56 pm

Plus, it's illegal to point guns in Florida, you go to jail for that. But it is perfectly legal to point and shoot. For syg.

Conclusion: stupid law, you have to shoot to kill.

Post by **Tero** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:59 pm

I hope some more legislation comes after the case. Obviously we are not going to take guns away from gun enthusiasts (aka nuts). But, I woulk like to see involvement in other people's business while you have the gun minimized. Do not approach the people, do not speak to them. Do not judge which of two people you need to shoot. You are not trained for that. Shoot neither. even if you point the gun and speak, you are already meddling. Cops, trained, sometimes shoot the wrong person.

If you sit in your truck and they come after you, drive off or shoot if you really have to.

Post by **Warren Dew** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:52 pm

Tero wrote:I hope some more legislation comes after the case.

They should ban Skittles so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

Post by **laklak** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:59 pm

It's illegal to "brandish" a weapon in Florida, which is distinctly different from using a weapon in self-defense. Here ya go:

790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—

If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083

The "not in necessary self-defense" is the important bit.

Post by **Tero** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:24 pm

>> dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon<<

Looks like no skittles in that list. So Martin had in fact discovered Z as guilty of misdemeanor. He was forced to bang Zs head on the sidewalk in order to disarm him!!

Post by **Seth** » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:11 pm

Tero wrote:>> dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon<<

Looks like no skittles in that list. So Martin had in fact discovered Z as guilty of misdemeanor. He was forced to bang Zs head on the sidewalk in order to disarm him!!

Except for the fact that Zimmerman didn't pull his gun out and "brandish" it till he was already on his back having his head smashed on the ground...which was why he pulled his gun and shot.

Nice try though...

rationalia.com