Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

The shooting in Florida


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Shifty wrote:
George is a menace.

After reading DM Barcas very thoughtful post, I think the boys in blue are likely to agree with you.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Asphere wrote:


The word reasonable means that he must show that he had a logical reason to fear that his death was imminent or that great bodily injury was imminent. A fist fight wouldn't fall under this. Especially one that left injuries that were not visible by witnesses or the police station video.

As a person who believes in the right to own and carry firearms, I think people like George Zimmerman ruin it for the rest of us. Never would I in a 1000 years use a gun in a fist fight. The law was not meant to be used this way...saying it can is abusing it and it gives the anti-gun crown good reasons to remain anti-gun.

I'm not saying any fist fight should be met with lethal force but there is a time when its reasonable. Fist fights can be lethal although its unlikely. More probable is possible permanent loss of vision and/or hearing. I would say that falls under great bodily injury. It would seem Zimmermen felt he was in danger of his life. Not saying I agree with him but I have to disagree with the sentiment that fist fights never call for lethal force.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:
After reading DM Barcas very thoughtful post, I think the boys in blue are likely to agree with you.

NOTE: I am not a homicide investigator. I am a decentralized, non-specialized investigator (as opposed to the usual centralized, specialized investigators who only do a single type of crime). I have worked cases ranging from the petty (lawnmower theft!) to the serious (attempted murder!). I file, on average, 1-2 felonies and 1-2 misdemeanors per week. (For reactive investigation, that is very good.) I juggle between four and twelve cases at a time. I know quite a bit the difficulties of trying to build a case with insufficient evidence, and the frustration of calling into the prosecutor's office with a case only to have it turned down.

Most of us hate dealing with security guards. While some of them are very professional and helpful, they are quite overzealous more often than not. I have dealt with many George Zimmermans in my life. I don't think he set out to hunt down Trayvon Martin, but I do think his volatility and overzealousness led to a confrontation and his inexperience led to him feeling that it was necessary to shoot. Had he been an off-duty patrol officers, I would not have any trouble giving him the benefit of the doubt, because I know that the above factors would likely not be present. I don't think that it's a conspiracy, racial or otherwise, to protect Zimmerman.

I don't even particularly fault their prosecutors for turning the case down. Obviously, with as much arguing as people are doing over it, there exists enough evidence to potentially produce reasonable doubt even if the case were set in a jurisdiction with normal laws governing the prosecution of deadly force. The shift of the burden of (dis)proof from the defendant to the state only exacerbates that.

I do think that the media and black activists are pushing the racial wedge in. This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone was on board with this interpretation. The backlash didn't start until at least a week and a half or two weeks later.


Pan wrote:
Asphere wrote:


The word reasonable means that he must show that he had a logical reason to fear that his death was imminent or that great bodily injury was imminent. A fist fight wouldn't fall under this. Especially one that left injuries that were not visible by witnesses or the police station video.

As a person who believes in the right to own and carry firearms, I think people like George Zimmerman ruin it for the rest of us. Never would I in a 1000 years use a gun in a fist fight. The law was not meant to be used this way...saying it can is abusing it and it gives the anti-gun crown good reasons to remain anti-gun.

I'm not saying any fist fight should be met with lethal force but there is a time when its reasonable. Fist fights can be lethal although its unlikely. More probable is possible permanent loss of vision and/or hearing. I would say that falls under great bodily injury. It would seem Zimmermen felt he was in danger of his life. Not saying I agree with him but I have to disagree with the sentiment that fist fights never call for lethal force.

Also, although a fist fight itself is unlikely to be lethal, losing one can easily leave you unconscious and thus completely at your assailant's mercy. It's one thing if it's a bar fight or something with plenty of people around, it's another if you're alone with your attacker.

That's all just in theory. I don't think much of really applies to this case.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Pan wrote:
Asphere wrote:


The word reasonable means that he must show that he had a logical reason to fear that his death was imminent or that great bodily injury was imminent. A fist fight wouldn't fall under this. Especially one that left injuries that were not visible by witnesses or the police station video.

As a person who believes in the right to own and carry firearms, I think people like George Zimmerman ruin it for the rest of us. Never would I in a 1000 years use a gun in a fist fight. The law was not meant to be used this way...saying it can is abusing it and it gives the anti-gun crown good reasons to remain anti-gun.

I'm not saying any fist fight should be met with lethal force but there is a time when its reasonable. Fist fights can be lethal although its unlikely. More probable is possible permanent loss of vision and/or hearing. I would say that falls under great bodily injury. It would seem Zimmermen felt he was in danger of his life. Not saying I agree with him but I have to disagree with the sentiment that fist fights never call for lethal force.

Also, although a fist fight itself is unlikely to be lethal, losing one can easily leave you unconscious and thus completely at your assailant's mercy. It's one thing if it's a bar fight or something with plenty of people around, it's another if you're alone with your attacker.

That's all just in theory. I don't think much of really applies to this case.

Good point. It is often unclear whether people are talking generalities or specifically about the Trayvon/Zimmermen incident.


It is generally accepted that if a law enforcement officer is about to succumb to unconsciousness in a hand-to-hand fight, deadly force can become a reasonable option because of the vastly-increased likelihood that the assailant may take the unconscious officer's firearm and use it against them.

It is less reasonable in most other situations.

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Pan wrote:
Asphere wrote:


The word reasonable means that he must show that he had a logical reason to fear that his death was imminent or that great bodily injury was imminent. A fist fight wouldn't fall under this. Especially one that left injuries that were not visible by witnesses or the police station video.

As a person who believes in the right to own and carry firearms, I think people like George Zimmerman ruin it for the rest of us. Never would I in a 1000 years use a gun in a fist fight. The law was not meant to be used this way...saying it can is abusing it and it gives the anti-gun crown good reasons to remain anti-gun.

I'm not saying any fist fight should be met with lethal force but there is a time when its reasonable. Fist fights can be lethal although its unlikely. More probable is possible permanent loss of vision and/or hearing. I would say that falls under great bodily injury. It would seem Zimmermen felt he was in danger of his life. Not saying I agree with him but I have to disagree with the sentiment that fist fights never call for lethal force.

Also, although a fist fight itself is unlikely to be lethal, losing one can easily leave you unconscious and thus completely at your assailant's mercy. It's one thing if it's a bar fight or something with plenty of people around, it's another if you're alone with your attacker.

That's all just in theory. I don't think much of really applies to this case.

Good point. It is often unclear whether people are talking generalities or specifically about the Trayvon/Zimmermen incident.

Yes if you are on the ground being beaten to a bloody pulp and your assailant isn't stopping you might be able to justify it. But this clearly wasn't that. If there was a scuffle it was small.


DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun.

Absolutely, I agree with you completely. I think that his incompetence should warrant a criminal offense.

Shadow Lodge

loaba wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun.

Absolutely, I agree with you completely. I think that his incompetence should warrant a criminal offense.

If the expert opinion of the forensic analysts that I linked earlier turn out to be true and Trayvon was the one calling for help, coupled with the lack of injury on Zimmerman, coupled with the lack of evidence on the body of Trayvon that he was punching someone (no DNA, no micro-bruising along the knuckles), I think a 1st degree murder charge is in order.


Asphere wrote:
loaba wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun.

Absolutely, I agree with you completely. I think that his incompetence should warrant a criminal offense.

If the expert opinion of the forensic analysts that I linked earlier turn out to be true and Trayvon was the one calling for help, coupled with the lack of injury on Zimmerman, coupled with the lack of evidence on the body of Trayvon that he was punching someone (no DNA, no micro-bruising along the knuckles), I think a 1st degree murder charge is in order.

That would be nice. Dude shoulda just stayed in his vehicle. I simply can't stress that enough. He made this happen.

Shadow Lodge

DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...

How can you be so sure? If Zimmerman did indeed say "F*cking Coons" and if the police didn't charge him because they saw Zimmerman as one of their own...it is about race - or better yet culture.

Zimmerman screwed up when he shot the child of educated people. Once they realized that no charges were going to be made against the man that just killed their son they turned to the media to put pressure on the police. That was their only option. Can you really blame them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Asphere wrote:

Zimmerman's father was white. We live in a patriarchal society. His neighbors seem to be mostly white. He may have a latino mother but he appears to have been raised in a mostly white culture. It wouldn't surprise me if he also inherited the prejudices of said culture. - considering what was clearly mumbled in his 911 call (it does not say punks or goons - who says goons?).

However, that does not matter. I have been on the losing end of a fist fight and I have been stomped much worse than Zimmerman. Never did the idea of blasting my assailant in the chest come to my mind as an appropriate reaction. I wanted to hurt him...but not kill him. Zimmerman could have shot him in the leg if he had to.

Edit: As a plus, if Zimmerman is never arrested it teaches me that I can kill someone in Florida by either:

1. Shooting them away from witnesses, afterwards breaking my nose by bashing it against he pavement.

2. Whispering horrible things to them until I coax them into attacking me, then shoot them and claim self defense.

Hold on, White people are not inherently racist! Also, lots of people say Goons. I play Hockey so its a popular term. Its like saying Thug.

You say he grew up in a mostly White culture. If you have not noticed you and I live and thrive due to the White culture your blasting.

You and I do NOT KNOW THE DETAILS. Its seriously irresponsible of you to state your opinion as fact.

Stop being a usefull idiot friend. Your being had!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this level of naivete.


I'm thinking you're being a bit optimistic here. There are bigoted people everywhere in life.

DM Barcas wrote:
thejeff wrote:
All the documentation of police prejudice, DWB, stop and frisk policies, etc. None of it matters.

Did you know that the New Jersey Turnpike study, likely the most-cited study "proving" racial profiling, had only a single documented instance of racism - and it was an off-hand comment of an officer regarding a Hispanic DWI suspect's hat? (He called it a sombrero, and implied it was filled with beer.)

I always take offense to people accusing us of racial profiling. Racial profiling is really quite difficult. I've pulled over a few hundred people over the last few years, and only a few dozen of those can I say that I knew the driver's race beforehand. Racial profiling is freaking difficult with modern cars. You'd have to be really dedicated to the idea in order to effectively racially profile.

I take offense to accusations of police prejudice, and the assumption that it occurs. Here's an anecdote from a few years back: my partner and I were sitting across from a motel that we knew to be a hotbed of drugs and underage prostitution. We were waiting for vehicles to make entry and exit within five minutes. It was after dark, probably around 9pm. One of the vehicles, an expensive-looking black Lincoln with tinted windows, entered the motel parking lot and exited just two minutes later. We watched as it failed to stop behind the painted stop line at the stop sign at the corner, then jumped out and pulled it over a few blocks later. I got out of the car and walked up to it carefully, flashlight out and shining it at the driver's side. The driver rolled the window down about four inches. I saw that it was a black female, and she immediately greeting me with an accusation that I pulled her over because she was black. I got her driver's license and insurance and discovered that she was just picking up a friend from the motel. I explained the traffic violation she had committed, to which she responded that it was a b**~!&~& excuse and that I had racially profiled her. I went ahead and wrote...


Darkwing Duck wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Did anyone else note that it took forever for the media to acknowledge that Zimmerman is no more white than Obama is?

That the little child in Trayvon Martin's picture is not a current picture of him?
And that the media chose a picture of Zimmerman wearing prison orange?

Regardless of who is guilty (and we won't know that until the trial, the fact is that none of us knows all the available evidence), it seems to me that the media was trying to slant the story in one direction (albeit covertly) from day one.

Racism isn't confined to Black vs. White. So Zimmerman's Latino, from all accounts he was still profiling and aggressively chasing the boy just like any other bigot with a gun and a self-professed mission. Despite being directly told by 911 not to do so. Him not being WASP doesn't change the situation one iota.
Tell that to the media who aggressively portrayed him as a white man, even selecting a photo of him that is years out of date which made him look whiter than he is.

Wha? He looks fairly white in the video too, just a hella lot more in shape.


Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.


loaba wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.

I realize I am FAR from unbiased on this front, but not where I'm standing. Once those words come out, someone's looking to start something based on race.


Freehold DM wrote:
loaba wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.

I realize I am FAR from unbiased on this front, but not where I'm standing. Once those words come out, someone's looking to start something based on race.

I think the racial slur is still in doubt. He could have used one, but it's far from proven fact (right now.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
loaba wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.

I realize I am FAR from unbiased on this front, but not where I'm standing. Once those words come out, someone's looking to start something based on race.
I think the racial slur is still in doubt. He could have used one, but it's far from proven fact (right now.)

I know what I heard. I'm also quite familiar with bigots using words similar to the ones they wish they could use because they know they are being listened to by ears that might take offense. Still, you have a right to your opinion.


There's no evidence that the police hid any evidence or went easy on him because of his race. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. This evidence, such as the investigator attempting to obtain charges, is largely ignored in favor of the conspiracy angle.

When I read the report of the patrol officers, I saw subtle signs pushing towards prosecution, not away from. I have written and read thousands of police reports. Phrase choices can be very important, and the phrase choices are not biased towards Zimmerman.

Shadow Lodge

loaba wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.

So that means it wasn't about race? Because he is not in the klan?

Also, since that particular police department has run into race issues before, if this one turns out to be about race...will you change your tune? I am less concerned about Zimmerman's racism and more concerned about the police who represent the state of Florida.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...
How can you be so sure?

He wasn't out with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire. Rather he was out looking for people who didn't belong in his neighborhood. A lone guy, walking in the rain and hoodie drawn up, fit that bill.

He may have used a racial slur, but that doesn't mean anything in this situation.

Gearge Zimmerman wanted to be hero. The kid didn't want to take any crap. I get that.

So you have to be "with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire" to be racist? Sure by that definition, Zimmerman isn't racist.

OTOH, the mere assumption that a black teen walking in the rain "didn't belong in his neighborhood" and must be up to trouble is itself racist.
And he did identify him as black in the 911 call.

If lone guy walking the rain with a hoodie up (it's raining, that's what they're for!) doesn't belong, you're paranoid. If only the black ones don't belong you're racist.
Zimmerman made a lot of 911 calls. It would be interesting to see how many of them were about black men.

Dark Archive

Ok, I understand the sentiment of the parents going to the media, since the police didn't give them at least an arrest of the guy until things clear out like it normally happens (IMHO). I do also acknowledge that it is regularly turned into a racial thing even if there is still no evidence that supports the fact yet. All we have are conjectures and he said you said kind of thing going on.

Before you take a side and start playing the racist card, or any other thing I would advise to wait until you have more evidence to support you decisions, instead of simply jumping to conclusions and let your emotions push you to pick a side in this very complicated matter.

Stop calling insulting each other, instead debate what evidence we do have pertaining the case by not jumping into conclusions and trying to bring other things into the equation.

Best Regards to all.
Deiros

Shadow Lodge

DM Barcas wrote:

There's no evidence that the police hid any evidence or went easy on him because of his race. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. This evidence, such as the investigator attempting to obtain charges, is largely ignored in favor of the conspiracy angle.

When I read the report of the patrol officers, I saw subtle signs pushing towards prosecution, not away from. I have written and read thousands of police reports. Phrase choices can be very important, and the phrase choices are not biased towards Zimmerman.

The Sanford police have only recently begun to sing that tune but that hasn't been confirmed.

Please share which parts you believe to be subtle signs pushing toward prosecution and not away from. Was it the part when they wouldn't take the witnesses testimony whose story clashed with Zimmerman's?


DM Barcas wrote:

There's no evidence that the police hid any evidence or went easy on him because of his race. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. This evidence, such as the investigator attempting to obtain charges, is largely ignored in favor of the conspiracy angle.

When I read the report of the patrol officers, I saw subtle signs pushing towards prosecution, not away from. I have written and read thousands of police reports. Phrase choices can be very important, and the phrase choices are not biased towards Zimmerman.

To be fair, I don't think the police are hiding evidence or anything like that because of race. If that's going on, I'm thinking it's more due to family connections.


loaba wrote:


And that's really not the same thing? Really? O.o[

No, its really not the same thing. But, more to the point, it seems that Zimmerman did stop following Martin after the dispatcher told him what he did.

Darkwing Duck wrote:


So a 17yr old kid has been followed by some dude in a truck and then on foot. I mean, who's acting suspicious here? I guess Martin shoulda called 911 too...

We don't know that Zimmerman ever followed Martin in a truck. When did he do so? Before he called 911?

loaba wrote:
He should have stayed in the car. That's the bottom line. A kids is dead because he didn't.

A man is dead because, after Zimmerman lost him, the man doubled back and confronted him.

That's not smart. I know that, being 17, 'smart' is often not part of the equation, but just because somebody is being stupid doesn't make someone else responsible for their death.


thejeff wrote:


So you have to be "with the Klan, blowing up churches or lighting crosses on fire" to be racist? Sure by that definition, Zimmerman isn't racist.

OTOH, the mere assumption that a black teen walking in the rain "didn't belong in his neighborhood" and must be up to trouble is itself racist.
And he did identify him as black in the 911 call.

If lone guy walking the rain with a hoodie up (it's raining, that's what they're for!) doesn't belong, you're paranoid. If only the black ones don't belong you're racist.
Zimmerman made a lot of 911 calls. It would be interesting to see how many of them were about black men.

Have you ever lived in a gated community? I have. I got to know the people who lived there, if not by name, then at least by face.


Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...

How can you be so sure? If Zimmerman did indeed say "F*cking Coons" and if the police didn't charge him because they saw Zimmerman as one of their own...it is about race - or better yet culture.

Zimmerman screwed up when he shot the child of educated people. Once they realized that no charges were going to be made against the man that just killed their son they turned to the media to put pressure on the police. That was their only option. Can you really blame them?

Are people racist until proven innocent in your book?


Freehold DM wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Did anyone else note that it took forever for the media to acknowledge that Zimmerman is no more white than Obama is?

That the little child in Trayvon Martin's picture is not a current picture of him?
And that the media chose a picture of Zimmerman wearing prison orange?

Regardless of who is guilty (and we won't know that until the trial, the fact is that none of us knows all the available evidence), it seems to me that the media was trying to slant the story in one direction (albeit covertly) from day one.

Racism isn't confined to Black vs. White. So Zimmerman's Latino, from all accounts he was still profiling and aggressively chasing the boy just like any other bigot with a gun and a self-professed mission. Despite being directly told by 911 not to do so. Him not being WASP doesn't change the situation one iota.
Tell that to the media who aggressively portrayed him as a white man, even selecting a photo of him that is years out of date which made him look whiter than he is.
Wha? He looks fairly white in the video too, just a hella lot more in shape.

He looks hispanic to me in that video.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

By absolutely no definition of the law does suspecting that one is being followed grant that one the right to assault another.

You have been shown this is wrong on multiple occasions.

Someone running after you for 5 blocks is grounds for a reasonable conclusion that someone means to do you harm or commit a crime against you.

By the law , cited for you repeatedly, that you keep ignoring, when that occurs you may use non lethal force against the person if you think doing so will prevent them from harming you or committing a crime against you.

I know this goes against your sensibilities, but you really can't interject your own sensibilities as the only foundation for law or morality.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
loaba wrote:


And that's really not the same thing? Really? O.o[

No, its really not the same thing. But, more to the point, it seems that Zimmerman did stop following Martin after the dispatcher told him what he did.

Darkwing Duck wrote:


So a 17yr old kid has been followed by some dude in a truck and then on foot. I mean, who's acting suspicious here? I guess Martin shoulda called 911 too...

We don't know that Zimmerman ever followed Martin in a truck. When did he do so? Before he called 911?

loaba wrote:
He should have stayed in the car. That's the bottom line. A kids is dead because he didn't.

A man is dead because, after Zimmerman lost him, the man doubled back and confronted him.

That's not smart. I know that, being 17, 'smart' is often not part of the equation, but just because somebody is being stupid doesn't make someone else responsible for their death.

You seem convinced that Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. Where is your evidence for this?

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Asphere wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
This is not a case about race, but rather about an inexperienced man with poor judgment and a gun. At first, everyone...

How can you be so sure? If Zimmerman did indeed say "F*cking Coons" and if the police didn't charge him because they saw Zimmerman as one of their own...it is about race - or better yet culture.

Zimmerman screwed up when he shot the child of educated people. Once they realized that no charges were going to be made against the man that just killed their son they turned to the media to put pressure on the police. That was their only option. Can you really blame them?

Are people racist until proven innocent in your book?

Absolutely not. My point is that nobody can say with certainty that race did not play a part. There is some minor evidence that it may have.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Did anyone else note that it took forever for the media to acknowledge that Zimmerman is no more white than Obama is?

That the little child in Trayvon Martin's picture is not a current picture of him?
And that the media chose a picture of Zimmerman wearing prison orange?

Regardless of who is guilty (and we won't know that until the trial, the fact is that none of us knows all the available evidence), it seems to me that the media was trying to slant the story in one direction (albeit covertly) from day one.

Racism isn't confined to Black vs. White. So Zimmerman's Latino, from all accounts he was still profiling and aggressively chasing the boy just like any other bigot with a gun and a self-professed mission. Despite being directly told by 911 not to do so. Him not being WASP doesn't change the situation one iota.
Tell that to the media who aggressively portrayed him as a white man, even selecting a photo of him that is years out of date which made him look whiter than he is.
Wha? He looks fairly white in the video too, just a hella lot more in shape.
He looks hispanic to me in that video.

Racism in America is more about the clash of cultures. From what I can tell, and I may be wrong, he was raised within a white culture.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

By absolutely no definition of the law does suspecting that one is being followed grant that one the right to assault another.

You have been shown this is wrong on multiple occasions.

Someone running after you for 5 blocks is grounds for a reasonable conclusion that someone means to do you harm or commit a crime against you.

By the law , cited for you repeatedly, that you keep ignoring, when that occurs you may use non lethal force against the person if you think doing so will prevent them from harming you or committing a crime against you.

I know this goes against your sensibilities, but you really can't interject your own sensibilities as the only foundation for law or morality.

I've told my wife on many occasions that if somebody is chasing her and she can't get away or find help she should spray the assailant with mace. If she could carry a gun (she is a resident alien) I would tell her to aim it and tell them man to stay back while she dialed 911. If he keeps coming...shoot a leg. If he still comes...then shoot him until he stops coming.

By Darkwing's logic she shouldn't be able to do much to protect herself.

Dark Archive

It seems most people didn't read my post or I didn't touch anyone's sensitive side, but then again it was just my humble opinion to not go flinging I think, I heard they said. Instead just stick to the KNOWN facts and debate them properly or comment on them.

As for me I really will wait some more until there is more to make any conclusions as to who is guilty, reasons or why is he not guilty, etc...


Quote:
By Darkwing's logic she shouldn't be able to do much to protect herself.

That's a complete distortion of what I wrote. You should keep a blog!

If the person who is chasing her pins her down so that she can't go anywhere and makes it clear that they will inflict physical harm on her, she's absolutely in her rights to return force for force. They don't have to have a gun for her to use a gun as long as she has reason to believe that she will suffer that degree of harm and she can't get away.

Martin DID get away. Zimmerman admits to having lost him even while he's on the phone with 911.


BNW the way I read it, SYG suggests that you can use said force if they come to you - in that you can literally stand your ground and are under no obligation to flee. So under SYG you could certaionly use force against an attacker if they close ground to you.

Zimmerman in this case was the cause of the action in that he was an armed man on a dark and rainy night following a juvenile, for all that jkid knew he was about to be abducted into Uncle Kreepys Rape-van. By closing the distance and taking the offensive against Zimmerman he's probably outside the protection of a law that says you can stand your ground in that he actually approached and engaged.

Meanwhile Zimmy was an armed adult following teenagers in a manner that made them possibly afraid and intimidated, how could he be protected under SYG when he is actively out there engaging in such activity?

If Zimmerman was an armed guy at night following a teenage girl around and 'observing her' we'd be having a totally different conversation.

If Zimmerman was of 'middle eastern appearance, a muslim, armed, and following the Police around and observing them on a dark and rainy night' he'd be in Gitmo an hour later.

Zimm started this rockshow, because he is a menace and an idiot.

Now someone is burying their kid.

I'm not suggetsing the kid was an angel, but it makes no difference if he was or he wasn't.

Stay in the car Big George, even better, stay on your own property.


Seriously, think of the consequences of the law you want.

If I see someone on the street on a heavily trafficked area (say between an entertainment center and a subway station) and they have the wrong football jersey on and I double back on them and shoot them, I can claim that they were following me for that distance and I was protecting myself.

That's not a very sane law.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Quote:
By Darkwing's logic she shouldn't be able to do much to protect herself.

That's a complete distortion of what I wrote. You should keep a blog!

If the person who is chasing her pins her down so that she can't go anywhere and makes it clear that they will inflict physical harm on her, she's absolutely in her rights to return force for force. They don't have to have a gun for her to use a gun as long as she has reason to believe that she will suffer that degree of harm and she can't get away.

Martin DID get away. Zimmerman admits to having lost him even while he's on the phone with 911.

So my 110 lbs wife has to wait to be pinned by a man before she is allowed to use deadly force?


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Seriously, think of the consequences of the law you want.

Who's that aimed at?

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Seriously, think of the consequences of the law you want.

If I see someone on the street on a heavily trafficked area (say between an entertainment center and a subway station) and they have the wrong football jersey on and I double back on them and shoot them, I can claim that they were following me for that distance and I was protecting myself.

That's not a very sane law.

Martin did not shoot Zimmerman. Martin, IF he even did double back (which we don't know for sure), all we know is that an altercation occurred. How do we know that Martin didn't just ask "what is the problem" and that Zimmerman didn't act first? We don't know. But we do know that Martin DID NOT respond to his pursuer with lethal force. Zimmerman, on the other hand, according to his story, responded to non-lethal force with lethal force. The EMTs canceled the second ambulance because they said there were NO serious injuries and thus Martin was not using lethal force or applying massive damage to Zimmerman.

We are saying that Martin was in his right to ask why he was being pursued and to defend himself if need be. Usually, even for a clear cut justfied homicide, a forensic team shows up and does a report. So in the example I gave with my wife they would be able to determine that the forensic evidence fit her story.


Asphere wrote:

Racism in America is more about the clash of cultures. From what I can tell, and I may be wrong, he was raised within a white culture.

No, that's not 'white' culture - thats hyper-paranoid over-vigilance and over-armed culture - and that seems to be becoming quite a widespread culture and increasingly popular in society.

So many people are petrified by their own shadows they go get armed 'to be safe', and then they take away the safety and security of others...George.


Asphere wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Quote:
By Darkwing's logic she shouldn't be able to do much to protect herself.

That's a complete distortion of what I wrote. You should keep a blog!

If the person who is chasing her pins her down so that she can't go anywhere and makes it clear that they will inflict physical harm on her, she's absolutely in her rights to return force for force. They don't have to have a gun for her to use a gun as long as she has reason to believe that she will suffer that degree of harm and she can't get away.

Martin DID get away. Zimmerman admits to having lost him even while he's on the phone with 911.

So my 110 lbs wife has to wait to be pinned by a man before she is allowed to use deadly force?

I'm physically disabled (severe spine injury). No, I do not have the right to ambush any one I think is following me. Neither does anyone else.

Shadow Lodge

What I find funny is that now we have Martin's mother saying that is her son screaming on the 911 recording, we have two different forensic audio experts using different methods saying that it is Martin screaming for help, and we have a witness saying that it was a teenager screaming for help...but Martin's mom is a liar and she wasn't there, the forensic scientists are quacks, and the witness must be a liar because her testimony doesn't match George's.

However, Zimmerman and his father's testimonies are gospel. To quote one of my favorite bounty hunters "That seem right to you?"

Shadow Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Asphere wrote:

Racism in America is more about the clash of cultures. From what I can tell, and I may be wrong, he was raised within a white culture.

No, that's not 'white' culture - thats hyper-paranoid over-vigilance and over-armed culture - and that seems to be becoming quite a widespread culture and increasingly popular in society.

So many people are petrified by their own shadows they go get armed 'to be safe', and then they take away the safety and security of others...George.

No my point was that labeling him as white when he is mixed is not that much of a misnomer. Its not like he was from the block.


Asphere wrote:
No my point was that labeling him as white when he is mixed is not that much of a misnomer. Its not like he was from the block.

But I'm a white guy who grew up 'on the block', so do I classify as Black then? Please, tell me what 'culture' I am supposed to be, what is this 'white culture' of which you speak...? What about Canadians, they are white, well some are, do they have a different 'White' culture?

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Quote:
By Darkwing's logic she shouldn't be able to do much to protect herself.

That's a complete distortion of what I wrote. You should keep a blog!

If the person who is chasing her pins her down so that she can't go anywhere and makes it clear that they will inflict physical harm on her, she's absolutely in her rights to return force for force. They don't have to have a gun for her to use a gun as long as she has reason to believe that she will suffer that degree of harm and she can't get away.

Martin DID get away. Zimmerman admits to having lost him even while he's on the phone with 911.

So my 110 lbs wife has to wait to be pinned by a man before she is allowed to use deadly force?

I'm physically disabled (severe spine injury). No, I do not have the right to ambush any one I think is following me. Neither does anyone else.

You see you drop words like "ambush" to describe what happened. Its a tactic you are using to force the debate onto your predefined playing field. We don't know that Zimmerman was ambushed. We don't know, outside of George's own testimony, that he was even double backed on.

Again I pose the question to you: If Martin simply approached Zimmerman and said "hey what is the problem man" and Zimmerman grabbed Martin or pulled his gun out...is Martin then allowed to use force? If so, why are you so comfy with Zimmerman's testimony?

In the example I gave with a woman being pursued, she would be with in her right to draw her weapon and ask her assailant to stop following her, if he doesn't she would be within her right to shoot his leg. That would probably stop him. If it didn't she can fire until he stops. Forensics will be able to verify or falsify her story.

Shadow Lodge

Shifty wrote:
BNW the way I read it, SYG suggests that you can use said force if they come to you - in that you can literally stand your ground and are under no obligation to flee. So under SYG you could certaionly use force against an attacker if they close ground to you.

Shifty, I've been arguing stand your ground in MARTINS favor. Even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, Martin had a legal right to duck into a dark alley somewhere and then clock Zimmerman (who was comming after him), who could reasonably construed as a creepy old dude abductor or mugger from martin's point of view.

Since Martin is acting legally even by Zimmermans own narrative, Zimmerman can't claim self defense against a legal smackdown , much less escalate the violence from fists to a gun.


Shifty wrote:

BNW the way I read it, SYG suggests that you can use said force if they come to you - in that you can literally stand your ground and are under no obligation to flee. So under SYG you could certaionly use force against an attacker if they close ground to you.

Zimmerman in this case was the cause of the action in that he was an armed man on a dark and rainy night following a juvenile, for all that jkid knew he was about to be abducted into Uncle Kreepys Rape-van. By closing the distance and taking the offensive against Zimmerman he's probably outside the protection of a law that says you can stand your ground in that he actually approached and engaged.

Meanwhile Zimmy was an armed adult following teenagers in a manner that made them possibly afraid and intimidated, how could he be protected under SYG when he is actively out there engaging in such activity?

If Zimmerman was an armed guy at night following a teenage girl around and 'observing her' we'd be having a totally different conversation.

If Zimmerman was of 'middle eastern appearance, a muslim, armed, and following the Police around and observing them on a dark and rainy night' he'd be in Gitmo an hour later.

Zimm started this rockshow, because he is a menace and an idiot.

Now someone is burying their kid.

I'm not suggetsing the kid was an angel, but it makes no difference if he was or he wasn't.

Stay in the car Big George, even better, stay on your own property.

We may not agree elsewhere Shifty, but I do see what you are saying with respect to gender. If Martin was a woman, many of the people calling for cooler heads to prevail might be very well calling for Zimmerman's head instead.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Asphere wrote:
stuff about the word "reasonable" as used in statutes....

"Reasonable" means a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances when used in American jurisprudence. Meaning that it doesn't just matter if the defendant felt threatened, but whether a reasonable person would.

Shadow Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Asphere wrote:
No my point was that labeling him as white when he is mixed is not that much of a misnomer. Its not like he was from the block.
But I'm a white guy who grew up 'on the block', so do I classify as Black then? Please, tell me what 'culture' I am supposed to be, what is this 'white culture' of which you speak...? What about Canadians, they are white, well some are, do they have a different 'White' culture?

I too am a white guy who grew up in the city. My wife is Asian, I have black and Asian cousins, and my Mom is a Jew and my Dad is a hillbilly. I was raised amongst many cultures and as a result I don't really identify with the Southern American White culture. But many people do.

There are several unique white cultures in the United States. Pretending that there aren't is silly. They are rich and complex and interesting. In the South alone you see regional differences in white culture from New Orleans through Mississippi and down into Florida - the only unification is fried food and sweet tea. They have unique music and food and dialects. If Zimmerman was primarily raised in a white neighborhood, by a white father, amongst white friends and family members...calling him white isn't that huge of a misnomer. If he wasn't then it was an error.

I am not against culture. I love and celebrate it. But pretending that Southern white culture is void of racism is ignorant. I live here...it is rampant.

Edit: I did not mean to imply that culture is something that is discrete. It certainly isn't in America. It is a continuous spectrum where there is alot of bluring. You and I are examples of this because we don't really identify with a particular culture.

201 to 250 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / The shooting in Florida All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.