The "let's all beat this dead horse" thread.

In reply to tuna55:

We, as a species, only talk about this stuff in the wake of an incident. If nothing else, for the 99% of the people for whom it's not a front-burner issue on any given day of their life, that's when they're conscious of it.

It is the second-dumbest time to talk about it, right after "never".

Yes, there is a lot of cynical legislation-pouncing that goes on like this. It happens on all sides of every issue, after every sort of incident, for the reason I stated above. It's almost the only way anything happens at all. Which is its own bucket of berkeleyed up.

I'm sure as hell not going to defend Holder. It's only my intent to make my observation about the way we do stuff.

I'm out.

Boop

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

Did you know I like touching butts? It's great fun.

Datsun1500 wrote: The only thing I disagree with is saying he had 0% responsibility for what happened.

Nobody, in all of these pages of text, has said that. Period, end of discussion, get it through your skull dude.

I think everyone would agree that Zimmerman "probably" did NOT take the most appropriate course of action... which doesn't matter in the berkeleying slightest as that is neither here nor there beyond mental masturbation.

HiTempguy wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: The only thing I disagree with is saying he had 0% responsibility for what happened.

Nobody, in all of these pages of text, has said that. Period, end of discussion, get it through your skull dude. I think everyone would agree that Zimmerman "probably" did NOT take the most appropriate course of action... which doesn't matter in the berkeleying slightest as that is neither here nor there beyond mental masturbation.

I look at it this way, if person A sets up a deal to buy drugs off Person B. Person A arrives and Person B decides instead to jump Person A and steal his money. Person A, although doing wrong and committing a crime (buying drugs) does not give up their right to self defense.

Why should an ill advised but non-criminal act have any more bearing on Zimmerman's right to self defense?

JThw8 wrote: Why should an ill advised but non-criminal act have any more bearing on Zimmerman's right to self defense?

I am in absolute agreeance with you.

JThw8 wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: The only thing I disagree with is saying he had 0% responsibility for what happened.

Nobody, in all of these pages of text, has said that. Period, end of discussion, get it through your skull dude. I think everyone would agree that Zimmerman "probably" did NOT take the most appropriate course of action... which doesn't matter in the berkeleying slightest as that is neither here nor there beyond mental masturbation.

I look at it this way, if person A sets up a deal to buy drugs off Person B. Person A arrives and Person B decides instead to jump Person A and steal his money. Person A, although doing wrong and committing a crime (buying drugs) does not give up their right to self defense. Why should an ill advised but non-criminal act have any more bearing on Zimmerman's right to self defense?

This more or less, Zimmerman, while likely a complete hotheaded dumbass, still had the right to kill somebody bashing his head into the sidewalk. What happened before that is the part that nobody but Zimmerman and Martin can really fully answer, that's why he was acquitted. There's nothing more too it.

Back to pie.

Datsun1500 wrote: Have you read the 911 transcripts? Martin ran from Zimmerman and Zimmerman ran after him

With all due respect, it really doesn't say that.

It says Martin ran. It does not say he ran from Zimmerman.

It says Zimmerman followed. It does not say he ran after Martin.

I am not posting here to be argumentative, nor to be an armchair detective. I am posting here because I am a child of a mixed race household, raised in a black neighborhood, with nearly 50 years of being involved in the civil rights movement. I have family who are black, and I am in a interracial marriage. My wife's family is from Sanford. I am posting here because it is important to me for us as a nation to have healing on this issue.

Your posts do not appear to want healing. They appear to be inaccurate, and are baiting further division. You were not at the scene, nor in the courtroom. Please stop trying to prove to us how important you are and how good you are at being an armchair detective.

The jury has ruled the man is not guilty. That's enough for me.

I'm sad. I'm grieving.

Now I'm gonna try to get back to helping some of my friends and family cope with their pain.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

Yes, except self defense isnt applicable if you are the one that started te fight, that would/could lead to a manslaughter conviction, since an act against (attacking someone) leads to their death. You can't start a fistfight and then shoot someone when you start losing.

SVreX wrote: With all due respect, it really doesn't say that. It says Martin ran. It does not say he ran from Zimmerman. It says Zimmerman followed. It does not say he ran after Martin.

Yup. And nuanced as those differences may seem, the distinctions of those are very important. Everyone seems to be shouting that it is "obvious" that it is one or the other, and it's clear that Zimmerman is guilty/innocent.

It is not clear. We do not know. People should stop talking like they do. It was ambiguous enough for a jury of 6 people to deliberate for 12 hours after months of testimony. I am very comfortable in saying their verdict was correct under the law.

I don't see it as nuanced. I see it as a specific act, without definition of purpose or intent.

Maybe he ran away from Zimmerman.

Maybe he ran because he was attacking another person.

Maybe, just maybe, we don't know E36 M3 from the transcript, and we should accept THAT as truth.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Kenny_McCormic: Yes, except self defense isnt applicable if you are the one that started te fight, that would/could lead to a manslaughter conviction, since an act against (attacking someone) leads to their death. You can't start a fistfight and then shoot someone when you start losing.

Fiztfight, smashing your skull into the ground. Same thing right.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Kenny_McCormic: Yes, except self defense isnt applicable if you are the one that started te fight, that would/could lead to a manslaughter conviction, since an act against (attacking someone) leads to their death. You can't start a fistfight and then shoot someone when you start losing.

Fiztfight, smashing your skull into the ground. Same thing right.

When a fistfight escalates you most definitely can escalate your defense.

aussiesmg wrote: When a fistfight escalates you most definitely can escalate your defense.

agreed, there is a point where things escalate from a physical altercation to attempted murder. I can certainly see the attempt to liberate my head's squishy insides from its hard protective casing as being that point.

It's not the beating of the horse that is the issue... it's the expectation that the horse will move....

aircooled wrote: It's not the beating of the horse that is the issue... it's the expectation that the horse will move....

I like that. You sir, get awarded a +1

Grizz wrote: Boop http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

The article wrote: Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott. "How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him."

Methinks somebody is embellishing the truth a bit. Let's count the shell casings to see who that is.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Kenny_McCormic: Yes, except self defense isnt applicable if you are the one that started te fight, that would/could lead to a manslaughter conviction, since an act against (attacking someone) leads to their death. You can't start a fistfight and then shoot someone when you start losing.

Again, we don't know that. Personally I don't doubt that he did start it in every way at every opportunity. However, you cannot convict a man on gut feelings and guesses.

Strizzo wrote: You can't start a fistfight and then shoot someone when you start losing.

Sure you can. Just like that time when Anigo Montoya was losing a sword fight he started left handed but... then he switched to his good hand. berkeley yeah.

Dude, c'mon, it's "Inigo".

aussiesmg wrote: When a fistfight escalates you most definitely can escalate your defense.

don't know which of your posts to reply to, so i chose this one.

if a guy starts a fight with you, and despite your attempts to deescalate the situation, you end up in a fistfight, and said fistfight becomes a fight for your life, of course you can escalate your defense to using deadly force.

If you start a fight and start losing and then decide to pull your heater and ventilate the guy, that is NOT self defense. this is why the prosecution was trying to show Z as the aggressor who started the confrontation.

Lol at the new name