The Glade 4.0

What makes it seem like he had an axe to grind?

What makes it seem like he forced the situation to a head?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Ok, to sum up: Zimmerman's suspicion was not justified. Therefore, his pursuit was menacing. Therefore, Martin was justified in initiating violence. Therefore Zimmerman's defense of himself was manslaughter.

Thus, because Zimmerman was incorrectly suspicious of Martin, Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter. Items requiring proof: That Zimmerman was unreasonably suspicious, and that Zimmerman did not "walk away" from the pursuit.

Further implications: If someone is following you, and you have done nothing wrong, you are free to attack them. Someone else's perception of your actions (i.e. Martin's perception that Zimmerman was threatening) can strip you of your right to defend yourself.

I guess we're at an impasse. This is so **** up I don't know where to start.

I agree - I want to ensure there's no vigilantism going on either. From my exposure to the issues, I'm inclined to think GZ was over zealous, but I haven't been convinced by what has come out that he is guilty of wanting to be judge, jury and executioner.

My differences with RD amount to my belief that GZ's guarding and patrolling of his neighborhood is a perfectly legitimate activity, and on the face of it, needs no justification whatsoever. Carrying a gun needs no justification. The only issue needing to be decided is whether TM performed acts that would suggest GZ should have been concerned for his safety.

And personally, I think the info needed to make that determination has been brought out in the courts and the case against GZ should be dismissed.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Why are you like this? Grow up.

THIS (except they weren't both adults)

It's a tragic series of mistakes. Move on.

I'm with DFK on that point (which is why I pointed out RD's admission).

RD, considering his profession, seems awfully passionate about Zimmerman's guilt, despite the fact that he admitted 'not following the case'.

There is nothing wrong with having an uninformed opinion (I do it all the time). I guess I'm just surprised at how forcefully RD is arguing facts he doesn't have.

Well-reasoned, adult statement.

Why do you give a ****? If, for whatever reason, I take offense to something and response offensively, why does that matter to you?

Furthermore, given that RD and I have moved away from agitated rhetoric, why bring it up again?



This is a good summation of how I'm reading RD's position.

That said, the bolded sentence is as much a "grow up" worthy statement as anything I said, so.... yea.




Anyhow, the point is, I don't get the logic. It makes self-defense untenable.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

On the flipside of that argument is that if there is no penalty for provocation then you can punch someone in the face and then shoot them when they punch you back without repercussion.

_________________

That's an extreme example, but sure. If provocation didn't exist as a legal concept then you could do that.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the chain of logic from the position seemingly espoused by RD leads us to the conclusion that Arathain wrote up.

However, to use your example, if one person (of equal size and capability to their opponent) punches another for no reason whatsoever, and the punchee ends up shooting the initiator due to a reasonable fear for their life, the shooter/punchee shouldn't even be charged, much less move to a trial by jury.

Reasonable, is, in that circumstance, determined by the police investigator, duly appointed by law and [presumably] trained in such matters.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

FTFY (Puncher vs punchee lol)

Agree with the above 100%. But it is not what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman menaced Martin by stalking him through an enclosed environment then when Martin responded to the (in his estimation) reasonable threat presented by attacking Zimmerman then George responded to this escalation by shooting him.

In other words if a grizzlie bear is happily wandering about, and you back it into a corner and then shoot it to protect yourself you are going to Federal prison courtesy of the Federal Wildlife LEOs.

_________________

Another good write up of the case so far. Well worth the read.




http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-t ... epage=true

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Because I felt like replying. If you don't want replies to your posts from other than your intended target, send a PM.



For no reason other than I reply to posts as I read through the thread. Likely would not have, had I seen the "move away from" post beforehand.



Oh yes - I definitely think we agree. However, saying a position is "**** up" to the point I don't know how to address it, is a far cry from calling someone an idiot.



Agreed.

First of all, no you would not. If the bear attacked you, you would not be charged with killing the bear. You MIGHT be charged with harassment of wildlife (or whatever the actual charge is). Second of all, Martin was not a bear. Third of all, Martin was not backed into a corner.

If your daughter came home from school and said some dude was followed her in a truck to your street, then he got out and started walking after her until she reached your doorstep would you classify that as non-threatening?

_________________

Thanks, I appreciate it. Regarding the point above, I guess I feel like I have enough knowledge of the facts to engage in a casual forum discussion/debate, but yeah, if I were writing a journal article or something like that in my professional capacity, I would absolutely dig into the details to a far greater degree before staking out a position.

Also, I usually see at least some merit in both sides of most issues, so in casual discussions/debates, if I feel like one side or the other is being unfairly dismissed, I tend to start arguing that side and get gradually more and more intransigent if I feel like my interlocutors continue to be one-sided about it. Hell, I actually got booted out of the comment section at a feminist / social justice blog at one point because I was arguing Zimmerman's side over there! Here, meanwhile, I feel like a lot of people immediately leapt to Zimmerman's defense, partly because they instinctively push back against anything with a "that's racism!" angle and partly because they instinctively identify with the "concerned citizen / neighborhood watch" guy in this kind of situation. As a result, folks were seeing things only from Zimmerman's perspective and judging events based on his self-perception and subjective intentions, rather than judging events based on how a reasonable person in Martin's position would likely perceive and respond to Zimmerman's visible actions. So, I started arguing the other side.

A more balanced statement of my view, I suppose, would be along the lines of this:

Following someone without clear outward signs of benign intent (e.g. a security guard uniform, a news cameraman with his gear, etc.) is threatening behavior, particularly under circumstances that heighten the perception of danger such as darkness and the absence of other people, and creates an elevated risk of a dangerous/violent confrontation, so it's only reasonable to do it if you have a darn good reason. Zimmerman had somewhat valid reasons for being suspicious of Martin, but not enough to justify following him, particularly into the cut-through behind the houses (not sure why you keep saying he didn't do that?), so his decision to follow (again, at least into the cut-through) was unreasonable. Nevertheless, assuming the fight went down as Zimmerman claims, Martin was not justified in attacking Zimmerman, so Zimmerman is still entitled to claim (imperfect) self-defense for the shooting.

Generally, however, the law takes a very dim view of people who create dangerous situations, even if the person injured/killed is themselves guilty of some wrongdoing. If the need to physically defend yourself arises as a result of your having engaged in a wrongful course of conduct (including negligent or reckless conduct), you can only claim "imperfect self-defense", which mitigates your criminal liability but doesn't completely eliminate it. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, I think there's a plausible argument that Zimmerman following Martin into the cut-through behind the houses was wrongful conduct in that, given the limited basis for suspicion of Martin, following him reflected a reckless or at least negligent disregard for the possibility that he was innocent of any wrongdoing, would likely feel threatened by Zimmerman, and might attempt to defend himself from that threat with a violent response. To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on that reasoning, even though I'm the one suggesting it. I just think there's a plausible argument for it, and I feel like people here are being too dismissive of the idea that (a) Zimmerman's decision to follow was wrongful to some degree and (b) doing it anyway exposed him to the risk of some criminal liability if/when the situation went bad.

No, DFK! meant what he wrote. The punchee should not be subject to prosecution because he shot the puncher.
There was no "menacing" (nice choice of loaded words BTW), the environment was not "enclosed" in the sense you're attempting to imply. There was no cornering (of bears or anyone else). The bolded section is where the difference lies - without using emotionally loaded words or outright making **** up. Martin responded to non-violence with violence. Zimmerman responded to violence with violence.


This isn't a case of a girl walking home in the afternoon from school. It's a case of a 17 year old male, with their head covered by a hood, at night, walking around in a gated community that has had a rash of break-ins and burglaries. Apples and fish.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'll take a swing at that one, and say it's definitely "creepy." Threatening? Probably not, if he didn't trespass.

That said, it's a false analogy, considering Zimmerman did not follow Martin "to his doorstep."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No. Is that being backed into a corner? No. Would she be justified in attacking him? No. Is my daughter a bear? No.

RD, you're right that I identify more with the homeowning citizen, than with the grill wearing, tatt'ed up, small time drug dealing, petty thiefing, "@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA".

Beyond that, I don't believe Zimmerman's actions rise to negligence, much less recklessness. Concerning Zimmerman following Martin into the "cut-through behind the houses", I have to admit that I haven't heard that brought up as evidence.

Edit: Ahh I see, Martin cut through the neighborhood behind houses. Are you assuming Zimmerman followed him there?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

^ you are full of **** Arathain, you've posted repeatedly that you would beat the hell out of someone for being rude let alone following your kids.



So because he was a black guy he shouldn't be afraid of being followed throughout a neighborhood by another guy?



No it was not to his doorstep but it was far enough that he was on a call with 911 for over two minutes following him in his vehicle and then continued on foot.

_________________

Why is it that you suddenly feel the need to bring up race Hopwin?

I'm saying that a 17 year old male who has shown themselves to be quite adept at, and enamored with violence is a completely different subject than the one you're trying to bring into the conversation from left field.

In any event, attacking and beating someone with no attempt being made to resolve the situation calmly, because they followed you, is not acceptable

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Fair enough. I try to only approach this forum's discussion from a higher point of rigor. Indeed, probably too much rigor given that it's "just" a forum. To each their own.



Ok, so, some serious questions: Why is that threatening, to your mind?

Follow up, presuming it is threatening, why does that justify Martin's violence, to your mind?




a) That's because most of us do not believe it was unreasonable in any way, given the scenario, location, and history of the area
b) Not favoring this is because supporting anything else would undermine the right to self-defense



Let's use a decent, albeit flawed, analogy.



Let us say that you are driving home one day on your daily commute, and happen to follow the same car for 10 miles, including taking the same exit. On exiting, the driver of the lead car (the followee) now feels threatened. He stops in a manner that forces you to stop, exits his vehicle, and assaults you. You shoot him in self defense. Is this justifiable?

Now, let us say that you are driving home one day and notice a car that matches the description of a car you saw on the news related to an Amber alert (you are unaware that this is NOT the vehicle from the Amber alert). You call the police and follow the car, even though they say that isn't necessary. On exiting the highway, the driver of the lead car now feels threatened. He stops in a manner that forces you to stop, exits his vehicle, and assaults you. You shoot him in self defense. Is this justifiable?


If the former is justifiable, and the latter is not, why? In both cases the followee felt threatened, and until the assault had done nothing wrong.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I believe the citizen organizations are absolutely legitimate. I also believe there are situations when armed self-defense outside the home is appropriate even when not confronted by an obvious weapon, though the lack of an obvious weapon certainly makes it more difficult to show that lethal force was really necessary.

My issue with the Zimmerman/Martin case is that I think Zimmerman's actions were excessive/inappropriate given the fuzzy basis for his suspicions of Martin, and it was foreseeable that those actions could lead to a dangerous and unpredictable situation, so I feel that he should bear some responsibility for the consequences of the chain of events he set in motion. Noble intent combined with negligent action still carries liability.

I don't find the call duration relevant to proximity to Martin nor to your earlier comment regarding "to his doorstep."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine