What's America's problem? Page 169

  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

  • SparkyMarky81 14 Jul 2013 13:04:44 567 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I believe the right verdict was reached in the Zimmerman case. Stand your ground laws didn't really apply here. Although Zimmerman had ignored the 911 dispatcher's advice and followed Martin, it is not clear who instigated the confrontation.

    The injuries sustained by Zimmerman (cuts to back of head, broken nose, black eyes) are consistent with his story that Martin was basically kicking his arse, and fearing for his life, he chose to use deadly force. What's to say Martin would not have ended up killing Zimmerman had he not elected to shoot him?

    As there were no witnesses to the whole episode from start to finish, it is not possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's account was untrue.

    The media reporting of the incident really was poor in this case. NBC even doctored Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound as if there was a racist element to this, which they have since been forced to apologise for.

    Also, with regards to the lady banged up for 20 years for firing warning shots, this actually makes sense. A warning shot is still considered deadly force and are illegal. You are only permitted to shoot in the event that you have a genuine belief that your life is in serious danger. The fact that she chose to fire warning shots rather than to shoot at her attacker would suggest this wasn't the case, and that she could deter her assailant with a warning rather than have to kill.

    If she had seriously felt it was kill or be killed, she would have fired at her attacker.

    Harsh but fair really.
  • MrDigital 14 Jul 2013 13:06:14 1,866 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    All Zimmerman's word, against the dead guy.
    But he a torn up face and cuts on the back of his head indicating his head was smashed against the ground -_- That's more than just someone's word.

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • FWB 14 Jul 2013 13:14:36 44,858 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    So if she had killed him she would be walking free?
  • SparkyMarky81 14 Jul 2013 13:19:06 567 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @FWB

    Well, depending on the circumstances, quite possibly.

    Warning shots are illegal and she admitted to firing them. It's a clear cut case really.

    Like I say, lethal force can only be used in what you consider to be genuinely life threatening situations and to believe a warning will scare the attacker away suggests this wasn't the case.

    Shooting should be an absolute last resort, not a scare tactic.

    Edited by SparkyMarky81 at 13:19:53 14-07-2013
  • grrrr 14 Jul 2013 13:26:30 11 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Zimmerman better not go out without bodyguards or he is going to be using a Zimmerframe to walk sometime soon or probably shot.
  • Gruff 14 Jul 2013 15:10:12 2,916 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Rusty_M wrote:
    Surely the juries in these cases were in a far better position to ascertain guilt than people on the internet?
    TAKE THAT BACK!!!

    Everyone on the Internet knows the law inside and out FACT

    “It's not easy to find happiness in ourselves, and it's not possible to find it elsewhere.”
    ― Agnes Repplier

  • Khanivor 14 Jul 2013 15:12:41 40,961 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    As in many instances in the US it's the media what's the problem. They wanted a juicy story so they ran with this one. It seems from the trial that justice was served. The problem is the public has been pumped for blood and they didn't get it.
  • Gruff 14 Jul 2013 15:14:27 2,916 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    SparkyMarky81 wrote:
    @FWB

    Well, depending on the circumstances, quite possibly.

    Warning shots are illegal and she admitted to firing them. It's a clear cut case really.

    Like I say, lethal force can only be used in what you consider to be genuinely life threatening situations and to believe a warning will scare the attacker away suggests this wasn't the case.

    Shooting should be an absolute last resort, not a scare tactic.
    /Reads the title of the thread

    /Case proven.

    Give them more guns I say....

    “It's not easy to find happiness in ourselves, and it's not possible to find it elsewhere.”
    ― Agnes Repplier

  • Khanivor 14 Jul 2013 15:20:32 40,961 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    One thing is for sure, those Stand Your Ground laws need to go.
  • Moot_Point 14 Jul 2013 15:23:39 4,387 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Pfft. I thought there would be more rioting to be honest. Kinda disappointed.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • onestepfromlost 14 Jul 2013 15:43:17 2,090 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    it is not clear who instigated the confrontation
    Are you kidding me? If I was walking down the street minding my own business and I get stopped by some random guy with a gun I think I would attack him and fight for my life too. How did he not know Zimmerman wasn't some crazy out to kill a random person or wasn't trying to rob him. This was the whole reason the dispatcher told him to stay in the car. To the youth Zimmerman is just a random guy with a gun. The police are uniformed and identifiable.
  • onestepfromlost 14 Jul 2013 15:43:18 2,090 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Post deleted
  • onestepfromlost 14 Jul 2013 15:43:56 2,090 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    fix post
  • MrDigital 14 Jul 2013 15:48:55 1,866 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    onestepfromlost wrote:
    it is not clear who instigated the confrontation
    Are you kidding me? If I was walking down the street minding my own business and I get stopped by some random guy with a gun I think I would attack him and fight for my life too. How did he not know Zimmerman wasn't some crazy out to kill a random person or wasn't trying to rob him. This was the whole reason the dispatcher told him to stay in the car. To the youth Zimmerman is just a random guy with a gun. The police are uniformed and identifiable.
    You've just made the mistake that he explicitly stated.

    He mentions it is not clear what happened and then you say (to paraphrase) "The guy was just minding his own business, it was him who got stopped, not the other way around". But we don't know, at least not beyond reasonable doubt.

    Edited by MrDigital at 16:43:51 14-07-2013

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • grrrr 14 Jul 2013 15:55:26 11 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    The obvious solution to the problem. Everyone in America over 10 should get given free guns to ensure any future potential confrontations are even and fair. I think that would be a massive vote winner.
  • Bremenacht 14 Jul 2013 16:17:57 18,778 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The lesson from all this is that if you're going to fire a gun, make sure you kill someone, lest you end up in jail.
  • MrDigital 15 Jul 2013 03:46:59 1,866 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aside from SparkyMarky81's post, this is a great video on why it was a simple case of not guilty. Whilst admitting the possibility that he could have committed a crime, it explains why there is more than reasonable doubt, making a guilty verdict impossible, and why the public were so galvanised into expecting a guilty verdict with the media pushing the race issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 15 Jul 2013 09:40:34 38,898 posts
    Seen 31 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    How about some good news? Two teenagers find abducted 5 year old girl after chasing after spotting her in the abductor's car, then chasing after them on their bikes.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Bremenacht 15 Jul 2013 11:20:46 18,778 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MrDigital wrote:
    Aside from SparkyMarky81's post, this is a great video on why it was a simple case of not guilty. Whilst admitting the possibility that he could have committed a crime, it explains why there is more than reasonable doubt, making a guilty verdict impossible, and why the public were so galvanised into expecting a guilty verdict with the media pushing the race issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953
    All quite correct, but it doesn't feel like justice was done. Zimmerman was told not to go after Martin, yet he did. Why would he do that? Because he was scared? Because he felt the need to defend himself? Bah.

    I wonder if the US government should look into law that would allow prosecution of newsmedia for prejudicing a trial outcome.
  • Rusty_M 15 Jul 2013 12:11:33 4,787 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    MrDigital wrote:
    Aside from SparkyMarky81's post, this is a great video on why it was a simple case of not guilty. Whilst admitting the possibility that he could have committed a crime, it explains why there is more than reasonable doubt, making a guilty verdict impossible, and why the public were so galvanised into expecting a guilty verdict with the media pushing the race issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953
    All quite correct, but it doesn't feel like justice was done. Zimmerman was told not to go after Martin, yet he did. Why would he do that? Because he was scared? Because he felt the need to defend himself? Bah.

    I wonder if the US government should look into law that would allow prosecution of newsmedia for prejudicing a trial outcome.
    I thought the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" not "you must stay in the car" or "you must not follow him.

    The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine.

  • Bremenacht 15 Jul 2013 12:25:58 18,778 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Seems a trivial point to pick up on, but if you must

    Dispatcher: Are you following him?
    Zimmerman: Yeah
    Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
    Zimmerman: Ok
    He acknowledged the advice, and ignored it. Also

    Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
    Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away.
  • Bremenacht 15 Jul 2013 12:35:15 18,778 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    More stories on the Stand Your Ground law.

    As "stand your ground" claims have increased, so too has the number of Floridians with guns. Concealed weapons permits now stand at 1.1 million, three times as many as in 2005 when the law was passed.

    "I think the (stand your ground) law has an emboldening effect. All of a sudden, you're a tough guy and can be aggressive,'' said George Kirkham, a professor emeritus at Florida State University who has worked as a police officer.

    Criminologists say that when people with guns get the message they have a right to stand and fight, rather than retreat, the threshold for using that gun goes down. All too often, Bruce Bartlett, chief assistant state attorney for Pinellas-Pasco counties, sees the result.

    "I see cases where I'll think, 'This person didn't really need to kill that person but the law, as it is written, justifies their action,' " Bartlett said about incidents that his office decides not to prosecute due to "stand your ground." "It may be legally within the boundaries. But at the end of the day, was it really necessary?"
    Edited by Bremenacht at 12:37:59 15-07-2013
  • Psychotext 15 Jul 2013 12:38:32 54,499 posts
    Seen 54 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Seems a trivial point to pick up on, but if you must
    In fairness there's a significant difference between "don't do that" and "we don't need you to do that".

    I'd treat the latter as "no need to go out of your way", but that's obviously a British perspective.
  • AaronTurner 15 Jul 2013 12:44:35 7,792 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Don't know what happened that night, but the fact is that a man took a gun out onto the street, clearly ignored police advice to stay away from confrontation the result of which ended a mans life. If that is legal then I'm glad I don't live in america.
  • Bremenacht 15 Jul 2013 12:45:53 18,778 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Sure. I'd interpret that as a polite instruction. Certainly sounds like it on the recording (about 2:25), but that's my ears.

    @psychotext

    Edited by Bremenacht at 12:46:41 15-07-2013

    Edited by Bremenacht at 12:46:59 15-07-2013
  • Psychotext 15 Jul 2013 12:56:42 54,499 posts
    Seen 54 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Not really the sort of thing you want to be leaving any doubt about.
  • IMO 15 Jul 2013 13:05:47 5,697 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The more I think about this case, the angrier I get. Not about the verdict, which, ultimately, was the "right" one, nor at the wider implications and accusations of racism. It's the senseless loss of life because of someone's false empowerment caused by owning a gun that is really pissing me off.
  • glaeken 15 Jul 2013 13:36:26 11,228 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So do they not have the option of having a verdict of manslaughter in the US? I can see he may have been acquitted of murder but he has to be at the very least guilty of manslaughter from what I know of the case. I am sure I have heard of cases before where they acquit on murder but then find someone guilty of manslaughter. Maybe that's just a UK thing though.
  • RedSparrows 15 Jul 2013 13:38:24 23,435 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yup.

    The discussion that interests me most isn't banning/allowing guns, as that's mired in the constitutional rhetoric of an America born long ago, but the psychology and contemporary social issues that surround the fact that people DO have guns, and ARE able to use them, in such cases as this.
  • glaeken 15 Jul 2013 13:42:37 11,228 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think there has to be some culpability from making a decision to enter into a violent situation that could have been avoided while armed.

    If a gun gives you the guts to get yourself into a situation where you are going to have to use the gun to get out of that situation it's pretty fucked up.
  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

Log in or register to reply