Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Nomad wrote:

Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Believe me, you don't want me empowered under a wild west regime where playing music I find objectionable is grounds for killing.

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

The Article wrote:

According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Yes.. having someone drive up to you in a public parking lot is totally jerk behavior that merits a shooting. I don't think your disclaimer works, since you say the exact opposite in the previous two sentences.

I'm not sure how you can draw those conclusions. First, you intentionally omit most of the details when you use the phrase "someone drive up to you in a public parking lot". Are you assuming there was no possibility of a heated argument between the parties in both vehicles? Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Second, how am I saying the opposite? What about the word "lunatic" is unclear?

Even if the music was loud and offensive, it was in a freaking gas station. If you walk up to someone playing his music too loud in a parking lot and ask him politely to turn it down and he responds negatively, the proper thing to do is walk back to your car and drive off.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Believe me, you don't want me empowered under a wild west regime where playing music I find objectionable is grounds for killing.

Are you kidding me? I literally said in my post that it wasn't. I am not defending the lunatic who shot the teenager.

Paleocon wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think a secondary moral to these stories is:

As a general rule, don't be a jerk to people. You never know if one of them might be a lunatic with a gun. I think the "anonymous internet culture" may be blurring the lines as to what is acceptable to say or do to someone else.

Disclaimer: I am not implying specifically that any of the parties involved in either of these 2 incidents was deserving of violence.

The Article wrote:

According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Yes.. having someone drive up to you in a public parking lot is totally jerk behavior that merits a shooting. I don't think your disclaimer works, since you say the exact opposite in the previous two sentences.

I'm not sure how you can draw those conclusions. First, you intentionally omit most of the details when you use the phrase "someone drive up to you in a public parking lot". Are you assuming there was no possibility of a heated argument between the parties in both vehicles? Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Second, how am I saying the opposite? What about the word "lunatic" is unclear?

Even if the music was loud and offensive, it was in a freaking gas station. If you walk up to someone playing his music too loud in a parking lot and ask him politely to turn it down and he responds negatively, the proper thing to do is walk back to your car and drive off.

Since when does a lunatic do "the proper thing"?

Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Believe me, you don't want me empowered under a wild west regime where playing music I find objectionable is grounds for killing.

Are you kidding me? I literally said in my post that it wasn't. I am not defending the lunatic who shot the teenager.

You're putting blame on the victims by saying that they shouldn't have behaved 'like jerks'.

I think the fundamental problem with conducting our lives as if every person we interact with could potentially be a gun toting lunatic is that we, well, act like everyone we interact with is a gun toting lunatic.

Wouldn't it simply make more sense to have laws that discourage this sort of behavior?

The kids probably told the guy to go screw...pretty much like every obnoxious teen has always done.

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

Believe me, you don't want me empowered under a wild west regime where playing music I find objectionable is grounds for killing.

Are you kidding me? I literally said in my post that it wasn't. I am not defending the lunatic who shot the teenager.

You're putting blame on the victims by saying that they shouldn't have behaved 'like jerks'.

No. It's not an either or. The guy who fired the gun is responsible for his actions no matter what happened. You are assuming that they did not act like jerks. At this point the details are unclear. Either way, shooting someone isn't the answer.

Paleocon wrote:

I think the fundamental problem with conducting our lives as if every person we interact with could potentially be a gun toting lunatic is that we, well, act like everyone we interact with is a gun toting lunatic.

Wouldn't it simply make more sense to have laws that discourage this sort of behavior?

You mean like manslaughter and murder laws?

Nomad wrote:

I'm not sure how you can draw those conclusions. First, you intentionally omit most of the details when you use the phrase "someone drive up to you in a public parking lot". Are you assuming there was no possibility of a heated argument between the parties in both vehicles? Are you assuming that the music playing in a public place wasn't overly loud and profanity laced?

The issue we're taking is that based upon the way you explained your point, you implied that the teenager was the jerk. The article states strictly that the man confronted the teen(s) to get them to turn down their loud music (nothing is stated as to what kind of music it was; for all we know they were playing Spongebob songs really loud), then both parties argued, then the instigator of the confrontation (who couldn't simply leave the convenience store when his shopping was done without imposing his will upon an unrelated patron of the business) shot the teen(s?) 8-9 times.

The teens did nothing to instigate any part of this mess other than being loud (and, depending on one's opinion of how loud is too loud, obnoxious), which -- NEWS FLASH -- happens all the time with teenagers.

This wasn't in front of a residence, nor was it a complaint levied by the business owner or employees, and the article says nothing about local noise ordinances.

So yes, your point about "not being a jerk" is pretty poorly made here, unless "don't be a jerk" means "avoid other people and don't dare stand up for yourself if anyone makes demands of you."

It appears the teens never even got out of their vehicle and Dunn was "trying to scare them" by firing 8-9 rounds into their vehicle. He says he didn't think he hit any of them and then drove 158 miles away from the scene of the crime.

He claims that he saw a shotgun and that the folks in the SUV threatened him. No weapon was found in the car.

I realize that this is just my own speculation, but my most reasonable explanation of events looks like this:

Dunn drives to a filling station. "Scary looking black youths" pull into pumping station next to him playing music louder than he likes. Dunn has gun on him so he feels bold. Wanting to teach the porch monkeys some manners, he tells them to turn their damned music down. Being youths, they tell the dumbass cracker to mind his own damned business. Dunn gets pissed that they aren't "respectful" and starts escalating his dialog. Youths demonstrate they are unimpressed with him and state that they could "beat him like a little bitch". Dunn prances around in glee as he believes he has fulfilled the requirements for "stand your ground" and fires 8-9 rounds into the car to "teach them a lesson".

After returning to his car, his girlfriend freaks out and makes him realize what he's done. He drives 160 miles to get the fcuk out of Dodge. He then concocts a ridiculous story about a fictional shotgun.

Nomad wrote:

Are you kidding me? I literally said in my post that it wasn't. I am not defending the lunatic who shot the teenager.

You're getting rightfully piled on, Nomad, so I'll just say just because you literally say something doesn't make it actually so.

Paleo's speculation looks to me like speculation that will prove accurate.

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

The absolute worst-case behavior that anyone has plausibly alleged the victims engaged in was playing music (in their own car) loudly at a gas station, and mouthing off to a maniac who it appears was spoiling for a fight.

That's not behaving like jerks.

That's being teenagers.

Nomad, It's only because you said THE LESSON TO TAKE HERE...

That's not the lesson to take here. There are plenty of lessons, arguably near the end of the list for civic minded people like ourselves would be to change our personal, rightful behaviors out of fear of those who would harm us wrongly.

Oddly, though, I think he might be onto something.

I think a large part of the behavior of folks like Zimmerman and Dunn is the need to establish that black youths should be respectfully afraid of white(ish) folks like they might have been prior to the Civil Rights Movement and the election of their n****er president. I honestly think that there is a strong undercurrent of this sort of "this far and no farther" mentality involved in this.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

What saddens me too is that I already know how this is going to get spun by the bigots and uber-conservatives I've known, so that they don't have to question the character of the upstanding conservative white business leader who is now being subject to the liberal communist agenda to destroy traditional America.

Tanglebones wrote:
The Article wrote:

According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.

Sounds to me like the teens were already there, playing their music, and Dunn drove up to them. I'll bet he's the type that buys a house next to the airport, then gets pissed off at all the planes flying overhead.

So now instead of old guys just shaking their fist and yelling "Get off my lawn" they just start shooting the kids on their lawn? No. This guy was just crazy and if the teens had said "Yes, sir, sorry, sir." and turned down their radio the guy probably would've just ended up shooting someone in the middle of a Wal Mart later for bumping him with their buggy. Some people are just bonkers and they end up killing or injuring someone at some point just because, well, they're bonkers. I also have no clue how he intended to pull off the stand your ground defense as the only thing he would've had to do to extricate himself from the dangerous situation would have been to lower his right foot a couple inches on the gas pedal. He was hardly cornered, unable to flee and afraid for his life.

Kehama wrote:

So now instead of old guys just shaking their fist and yelling "Get off my lawn" they just start shooting the kids on their lawn? No. This guy was just crazy and if the teens had said "Yes, sir, sorry, sir." and turned down their radio the guy probably would've just ended up shooting someone in the middle of a Wal Mart later for bumping him with their buggy. Some people are just bonkers and they end up killing or injuring someone at some point just because, well, they're bonkers. I also have no clue how he intended to pull off the stand your ground defense as the only thing he would've had to do to extricate himself from the dangerous situation would have been to lower his right foot a couple inches on the gas pedal. He was hardly cornered, unable to flee and afraid for his life.

What you have described is the simple beauty in the "obligation to retreat" doctrine.

and the problem with "stand your ground"

Nomad wrote:

Since when does a lunatic do "the proper thing"?

If Stalin can do it, anyone can.

Have some Think Progress on what Florida's Law has done.

Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

Ok. This is getting out of hand. I made it perfectly clear in my post that violence is never ok. Stop painting me as defending some crazy (and possibly racist) nutjob who murdered someone. The "teaching moment" is that these types of incidents are becoming far more common.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

Ok. This is getting out of hand. I made it perfectly clear in my post that violence is never ok. Stop painting me as defending some crazy (and possibly racist) nutjob who murdered someone. The "teaching moment" is that these types of incidents are becoming far more common.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Yup.

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

Ok. This is getting out of hand. I made it perfectly clear in my post that violence is never ok. Stop painting me as defending some crazy (and possibly racist) nutjob who murdered someone. The "teaching moment" is that these types of incidents are becoming far more common.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Yup.

+1

I'd also like some kind of source that these moments are more frequent or that this even was one.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Kind of way off topic, no? That would need its own thread.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

Ok. This is getting out of hand. I made it perfectly clear in my post that violence is never ok. Stop painting me as defending some crazy (and possibly racist) nutjob who murdered someone. The "teaching moment" is that these types of incidents are becoming far more common.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Yup.

+1


The wise old sages over at Penny Arcade completely disagree with you.

Certis wrote:
Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Kind of way off topic, no? That would need its own thread.

Sorry. I was making an observation about culture stemming from this instance. I can cease and desist.

No. I don't think the internet has anything to do with it.

I think a combination of easy access to handguns and laws that encourage douchebags to use them, such as Stand Your Ground and Conceal and Carry, are responsible for most of it. But then again, like child predators, I'm not sure there really is an uptick in anything besides awareness.

But the answer isn't telling kids to keep their music turned down because the internet makes us cranky.

Nomad wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The cops must not have thought much of his "stand your ground" defense, as the statue in question actually prohibits an arrest.

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't seem similar to the Zimmerman case at all. This seems like an asshole bigot that thought Stand Your Ground was a Get Out of Jail Free card for white folks.

And Nomad, any time you take an incident in which a lunatic shoots a black, unarmed youth, and try to paint it as a teaching moment for how the kid should have acted, people are going to assume you are a racist. Consider this your learning moment.

Ok. This is getting out of hand. I made it perfectly clear in my post that violence is never ok. Stop painting me as defending some crazy (and possibly racist) nutjob who murdered someone. The "teaching moment" is that these types of incidents are becoming far more common.

Is anyone prepared to say that the anonymity of internet communication has in no way emboldened people to be less tactful to others because they are accustomed to the safety of being anonymous?

Yup.

+1


The wise old sages over at Penny Arcade completely disagree with you.

Well, no, they think more people are assholes on the internet. That doesn't mean they've been emboldened to be less tactful in real life because they think they're still anonymous.