Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

Does that mean every fist fight should turn into a shooting?

At what point does a fistfight turn into a beating? How long should one have to lay on the ground while being pummeled before drawing a weapon?

Paleocon wrote:

The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

While I agree with your opinion of Zimmerman, it's highly unlikely that Martin was completely innocent in the altercation.

Farscry wrote:

Correct. And maybe my response was too vague, but I'll state it clearly: in the (probably vast) majority of cases, a fist fight does not serve to provide a reasonable fear of death.

When does it cease to be just a fistfight?

Farscry wrote:

Thus why I still stand by my assertion (and that of most jurisdictions) that unless someone is proficient enough with hand-to-hand combat to count their body as a deadly weapon, that fisticuffs does not count as deadly force.

That of most jurisdictions? So if one does kill someone in one of these jurisdictions, does the government just write the matter of since one didn't use deadly force to kill another person?

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

While I agree with your opinion of Zimmerman, it's highly unlikely that Martin was completely innocent in the altercation.

Why is it highly unlikely? Show me ONE piece of evidence that says Martin was not defending himself.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

While I agree with your opinion of Zimmerman, it's highly unlikely that Martin was completely innocent in the altercation.

Why is it highly unlikely? Show me ONE piece of evidence that says Martin was not defending himself.

Also it ceased to be a fist fight when Zimmerman drew his gun.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

While I agree with your opinion of Zimmerman, it's highly unlikely that Martin was completely innocent in the altercation.

Why is it highly unlikely? Show me ONE piece of evidence that says Martin was not defending himself.

Also it ceased to be a fist fight when Zimmerman drew his gun.

Which, again, could've been before the first punch was thrown.

Trophy Husband wrote:

If I remember correctly the statute requires reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Under the circumstances this would appear to qualify. I'll reserve judgement until I hear what forensics and witnesses say.

I don't recall that. If true, then yes, unfortunately I can concede that at that point Zimmerman might have had call to fear serious injury.

It also makes the law even more ridiculous and easily abused than I realized.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Correct. And maybe my response was too vague, but I'll state it clearly: in the (probably vast) majority of cases, a fist fight does not serve to provide a reasonable fear of death.

When does it cease to be just a fistfight?

Pardon my layman's terminology. I specifically meant physical confrontations without a weapon being used, which matches the stats I pulled into my follow-up post.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Thus why I still stand by my assertion (and that of most jurisdictions) that unless someone is proficient enough with hand-to-hand combat to count their body as a deadly weapon, that fisticuffs does not count as deadly force.

That of most jurisdictions? So if one does kill someone in one of these jurisdictions, does the government just write the matter of since one didn't use deadly force to kill another person?

Please stop being intentionally misleading. You know what I meant: that in a physical altercation, a human body or its constituent parts do not count as deadly weapons for the purpose of determining what force you are justified to respond with.

Where I come from, pinning a guy to the ground and beating the tar out of him qualifies as "wrong".

Sure, but had Zimmerman just stayed in his goddamn car, there's no way that could have happened.

Malor wrote:
Where I come from, pinning a guy to the ground and beating the tar out of him qualifies as "wrong".

Sure, but had Zimmerman just stayed in his goddamn car, there's no way that could have happened.

And that largely depends on how the altercation started.

If some holster sniffing, self appointed rent-a-cop decides he wants to "detain" me for being "suspicious" while I am walking back to my house in my neighborhood, the moment he puts his hands on me is going to be a day he would rather forget.

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

wow.. there is something seriously wrong with some people...yikes.

Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

If you're arguing that he had a right to defend himself with deadly force you're arguing he was in the right to get out of his car and pursue someone while armed with a firearm after being advised by police not to. I reject that premise utterly. This is not a tragic happenstance - Zimmerman made this happen.

Nomad wrote:

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

I would be interested in hearing, specifically, which interpretations or arguments advanced in this thread are overly simplistic.

Maq wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

If you're arguing that he had a right to defend himself with deadly force you're arguing he was in the right to get out of his car and pursue someone while armed with a firearm after being advised by police not to. I reject that premise utterly. This is not a tragic happenstance - Zimmerman made this happen.

This X1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Sorry.. whatever happened afterwars is all on Zimmerman.. even if the situation escalated beyond what Zimmerman initially intended.

I don't understand how you can know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, by his own admission, yet still think Zimmerman was defending himself. Zimmerman's deadly force was just self defense while somehow trying to construe Martin's actions as violent aggression instead of ALSO SELF DEFENSE? What the hell?

Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

You know, I am actually not sure whether I should be insulted by this. Because the implication - based on recent posts in particular - seems to be that those who disagree with you or CC are thinking the situation is too simple.

And I would hope that the amount of time I've put into trying to research my comments (not to mention that I did the research because I realized that I was making assumptions that very well could be wrong, so I wanted to try to get some data to determine whether to hold my opinion or change it; the data has supported my opinion so far) would indicate that I certainly don't think the situation was simple. And instead of getting responses that indicate equal complexity of thought, I'm getting O'Reilly style selective nit-picking responses over word choices that ignore the context of my statements.

So yeah. Kinda insulted here.

Nomad wrote:

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

I don't think the situation is simple at all. I think the entire chain of events is very complicated and we will, in all probability, never know exactly what happened.

What we do know is this: Zimmerman was told by the 911 Dispatcher to stop following Martin.

He didn't.

That is the turning point here. Had Zimmerman done what the dispatcher told him, we never would have known who George Zimmerman is.

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

You know, I am actually not sure whether I should be insulted by this. Because the implication - based on recent posts in particular - seems to be that those who disagree with you or CC are thinking the situation is too simple.

And I would hope that the amount of time I've put into trying to research my comments (not to mention that I did the research because I realized that I was making assumptions that very well could be wrong, so I wanted to try to get some data to determine whether to hold my opinion or change it; the data has supported my opinion so far) would indicate that I certainly don't think the situation was simple. And instead of getting responses that indicate equal complexity of thought, I'm getting O'Reilly style selective nit-picking responses over word choices that ignore the context of my statements.

So yeah. Kinda insulted here.

Don't be insulted. It wasn't meant to be a snarky insult. I was using the word simple to mean "not complex" rather than its alternate meaning "foolish". I thought that was clear from the context, but I'm glad to clarify.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I don't understand how you can know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, by his own admission, yet still think Zimmerman was defending himself. Zimmerman's deadly force was just self defense while somehow trying to construe Martin's actions as violent aggression instead of ALSO SELF DEFENSE? What the hell?

Well, both individuals failed to properly retreat. Martin did not need to confront Zimmerman instead of continuing to go home. I don't want to get piled on for this, but Zimmerman didn't have Martin cornered, and it sounded like he didn't even have Martin in sight at the time that he got out of his vehicle.

However, Zimmerman being the adult and the individual with the gun AND the person playing cops and robbers, appears to be guilty of provoking a conflict, escalating it, and responding to it with unjustified deadly force. Martin appears to be guilty of attacking Zimmerman while unarmed.

Nomad wrote:

Don't be insulted. It wasn't meant to be a snarky insult. I was using the word simple to mean "not complex" rather than its alternate meaning "foolish". I thought that was clear from the context, but I'm glad to clarify.

Thanks for clarifying; I know I'm getting a little heated here and that means I get defensive (unnecessarily so, most of the time :oops:)

Nomad wrote:

Don't be insulted. It wasn't meant to be a snarky insult. I was using the word simple to mean "not complex" rather than its alternate meaning "foolish". I thought that was clear from the context, but I'm glad to clarify.

Regardless of the sense in which you meant it, I would still be awfully interested in hearing, specifically, which interpretations or arguments advanced in this thread you feel are overly simplistic.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Don't be insulted. It wasn't meant to be a snarky insult. I was using the word simple to mean "not complex" rather than its alternate meaning "foolish". I thought that was clear from the context, but I'm glad to clarify.

Regardless of the sense in which you meant it, I would still be awfully interested in hearing, specifically, which interpretations or arguments advanced in this thread you feel are overly simplistic.

Note that the terms "overly simplistic" which I would say does sound a little insulting were not my words, but yours. The view (seemingly shared by many) that might be too simple is:

Paleocon wrote:

Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

Farscry wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I don't understand how you can know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, by his own admission, yet still think Zimmerman was defending himself. Zimmerman's deadly force was just self defense while somehow trying to construe Martin's actions as violent aggression instead of ALSO SELF DEFENSE? What the hell?

Well, both individuals failed to properly retreat. Martin did not need to confront Zimmerman instead of continuing to go home. I don't want to get piled on for this, but Zimmerman didn't have Martin cornered, and it sounded like he didn't even have Martin in sight at the time that he got out of his vehicle.

However, Zimmerman being the adult and the individual with the gun AND the person playing cops and robbers, appears to be guilty of provoking a conflict, escalating it, and responding to it with unjustified deadly force. Martin appears to be guilty of attacking Zimmerman while unarmed.

I agree there's a reasonable possibility Martin could have retreated. But there's still a lot of assumptions in this post. What's the evidence that Martin ever attacked Zimmerman first?

Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

TheGameguru wrote:

wow.. there is something seriously wrong with some people...yikes.

We will now commence the personal attack and name calling portion of the thread. Someone get the popcorn gif.

To clarify my mentally unstable position: I’m not sure if the evidence I’ve seen warrants a conviction of murder under the current laws of Florida. What I’m not currently debating:
Stand your ground
Right to bear arms
Sanford police investigation
Holster sniffers should shoot teenagers
Florida should be dropped from the US

Farscry wrote:

So yeah. Kinda insulted here.

You’re insulted? This page alone I’ve been told there’s something seriously wrong with me, and now Maq won’t speak to me.

Trophy Husband wrote:

What I’m not currently debating:

Florida should be dropped from the US

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Florida's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

clover wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

What I’m not currently debating:

Florida should be dropped from the US

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Florida's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

Ha ha. If you drop us, we'll invade. We have the guns to do it.

Trophy Husband wrote:
clover wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

What I’m not currently debating:

Florida should be dropped from the US

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Florida's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

Ha ha. If you drop us, we'll invade. We have the guns to do it.

We've seen you vote. It would take 100 years for you guys to come up with a plan.

I think my paraphrase was fair, given that you clearly were advocating the merits of a less-simple interpretation, but am happy to use whatever terminology you feel more comfortable with.

Nomad wrote:

Note that the terms "overly simplistic" which I would say does sound a little insulting were not my words, but yours. The view (seemingly shared by many) that might be too simple is:

Paleocon wrote:

Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

I think Paleocon's "limpdick holster sniffer" comes across as more of an attempt at an original, entertaining insult than a serious characterization of the events of that night (a read I believe you've agreed with in the past).

With regard to an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong, that certainly doesn't seem inaccurate or too simple.

Rough sequence of events (based on what we know so far):
* Martin leaves the home he's staying at to head to a nearby 7-Eleven.
* Zimmerman hops in his truck and heads through the neighborhood to run a personal errand. At this point, Martin is on the phone with his girlfriend, walking home with Skittles and iced tea.
* Zimmerman calls the police non-emergency line to report a suspicious person
* Two minutes into Zimmerman's call with the police, he tells them that Martin is running (conversely, after at least two minutes of being followed by some stranger in a truck, Martin decides to try to run home. The call with his girlfriend also ends at this point)
* Zimmerman leaves his vehicle and tries to chase Martin down on foot. The dispatcher tells him not to follow.
* Martin's girlfriend calls him again.
* Zimmerman tells police he doesn't know where Martin is.
* Martin and Zimmerman have a confrontation. In Zimmerman's account, Martin leaps from the bushes or shadows, and weak action-movie dialogue happens (Martin: "You have a problem?" Zimmerman: "No, I don't have a problem." Martin: "You do now.")
* In Zimmerman's account, Martin begins beating him vigorously, smashing the back of his head against the concrete and punching him repeatedly. The physical evidence we have so far doesn't support this story (the autopsy results for Martin are a real problem for Zimmerman here), though the most-recent photo does make it apparent that Martin got in at least one punch.
* Zimmerman shoots Martin and kills him.

Trayvon Martin was unarmed throughout these events.

It's possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth about what happened that night, to the best of his ability. However, given that Zimmerman has a history of violence, and attempted to deceive a judge, he's not the most inherently trustworthy source.

Even in Zimmerman's version, Martin cannot meaningfully be accused of doing something wrong until he's been pursued by an unidentified stranger on vehicle and on foot, at which point Martin (in Zimmerman's version) finally initiates a fistfight which leads to his death.

At almost every point until the physical confrontation began, Zimmerman had reasonable alternative choices that would not have led to any violence at all. Even in his own account, Zimmerman repeatedly chose a path of escalation and conflict - including ignoring the direction from the police dispatcher to cease his pursuit.

Jayhawker wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:
clover wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

What I’m not currently debating:

Florida should be dropped from the US

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Florida's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

Ha ha. If you drop us, we'll invade. We have the guns to do it.

We've seen you vote. It would take 100 years for you guys to come up with a plan.

Well played sir.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Farscry wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I don't understand how you can know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, by his own admission, yet still think Zimmerman was defending himself. Zimmerman's deadly force was just self defense while somehow trying to construe Martin's actions as violent aggression instead of ALSO SELF DEFENSE? What the hell?

Well, both individuals failed to properly retreat. Martin did not need to confront Zimmerman instead of continuing to go home. I don't want to get piled on for this, but Zimmerman didn't have Martin cornered, and it sounded like he didn't even have Martin in sight at the time that he got out of his vehicle.

However, Zimmerman being the adult and the individual with the gun AND the person playing cops and robbers, appears to be guilty of provoking a conflict, escalating it, and responding to it with unjustified deadly force. Martin appears to be guilty of attacking Zimmerman while unarmed.

I agree there's a reasonable possibility Martin could have retreated. But there's still a lot of assumptions in this post. What's the evidence that Martin ever attacked Zimmerman first?

I'm just going off of what the police report info stated based on Zimmerman's testimony corroborated with a stress test (I don't recall if he got a full lie detector test or not), in which he stated he did not initiate the physical confrontation with Martin (basically, currently everything I've seen or read indicates that Martin was the first to utilize physical force).

Trophy Husband wrote:

What I’m not currently debating:
Stand your ground
Right to bear arms
Sanford police investigation
Holster sniffers should shoot teenagers
Florida should be dropped from the US

I'll take responsibility for the dropping Florida from the US comment, and apologize because it was not constructive. I was speaking in hyperbole out of my disgust for several of the recent problems there that seem to be ongoing due to legal situations in the state.

However, the Zimmerman case can't be discussed without involving discussion of the Stand Your Ground law, because it is intrinsically linked to making this case even messier than it should be. If this incident had happened in Iowa, for instance (or most states in the US), Zimmerman would have no defense for using deadly force in this particular confrontation. In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law is the reason why the particulars of this case become debatable.