I don't have much of an opinion on the actual verdict, the jury probably had their reasons. I never assumed Zimmerman acted out of malice or racism, but the whole situation still should have never happened, and I'm not certain he shouldn't be guilty of something.
I don't know how I'd react if I were followed, it could go any number of ways and I am sure it would depend on the situation. Feeling threatened and scared like that can make you react in unpredictable ways.
I'm not hoping for the day your friend gets beat up llamas, I'm just saying that if some woman slaps him or a boyfriend punches him in the face... he kind of had it coming.
I wrote a four word letter.
Also, why do you keep referring to Zimmerman by surname but Martin by first name? Very weird.
Perhaps naive isn't the best choice of words. I don't wish to sound confrontational or condescending. I respect your opinions and I'm interested in what you have to say. I just feel strongly that we, and indeed all living things, have the right to defend ourselves and shouldn't have to rely on others to protect us if we don't want to. Furthermore, laws are rarely perfect. I suppose I would rather see a murderer go free than an innocent man go to prison.
What would you prefer? A rapist/murderer enters your home and you can't legally kill the guy?
I didn't mean to make it sound worse; I guess I just left out detail to keep it shorter. But yes, I realize I'm a bit biased because I know the guy and I know he's not a creep in any way. I still don't think violence toward him would be fair, though. I guess it goes along with the above - I do believe in punishment fitting crime.You made it sound worse originally, but regardless, it's not really disturbing. I often see a girl with a really nice butt and feel glad we're walking the same direction. When we part ways I am sorry to see such a fine ass go. I've never gone out of my way to follow one but hey, if he's got nothing better to do it's not necessarily worrying. It is, however, quite similar to behaviour which would be disturbing. Like following someone home. Perhaps waiting outside their home then following them some more. Following them on more than occasion. You know he isn't doing these things because, well, you know him. But when you describe his behaviour to a stranger it could be misconstrued. At the very least it could sound like a precursor. Like torturing animals as a child. Though obviously that is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether it's a precursor for anything else and so not a perfect example.
Right, but it starts getting difficult when I have no idea who this person in my daughters room is and whether or not they are armed. Just as I have no idea who this weird guy following me is, and I have no idea if he's a threat to my safety or not.
I mean llamas, I don't think your friend deserves to be attacked either, I'll take you word for it, he's probably a good guy. but imagine what some of the people he is following could be feeling? Like... I know he thinks it's all fun and games, but that's how people get fucking kidnapped and murdered, you know. It could really upset people and why? so he can 'follow that butt'.
I have a friend who is visiting Chicago right now, she's visiting some people but she'll probably be alone often enough. I asked her how she would feel if a random man followed her around for a 5-10 minutes. I didn't mention anything else. Her response was that it's kind of terrifying and would probably upset her.
If you'll notice, at no point did I say he should be beat up. I have no interest in that conversation, really. I just think it's kind of fucked up to follow people around.
I wrote a four word letter.
I agree, a 16yo kid doesn't deserve to be shot for sneaking in to see his girlfriend. Conversely, the girlfriend's dad doesn't deserve to go to prison for shooting the boyfriend if he believed he was protecting his family from an intruder. At that point a tragedy has already happened and sending the father to prison would only compound the misery. Prison is for punishment and/or rehabilitation. In this example neither would be required, even if the father had mistakenly killed a harmless kid. It would be an honest mistake and a terrible tragedy, but surely not a crime. In a sense justice is simply about making the best of a bad situation. When someone has been killed nothing is ever going to bring the deceased individual back. When someone has been raped nothing is ever going to undo the harm that has been done. Punishment/rehabilitation is the best we can do with a bad situation. But sometimes there is no way to make a bad situation better at all. Sometimes taking any action at all is only going to make it worse. Like punishing the father for an honest mistake.
It's just never going to be easy or simple, and no result will ever satisfy everybody. But to get back on track a little, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws basically only differ from normal self-defence laws in that you are under no obligation to attempt to flee/retreat/escape/whatever before taking action to defend yourself. At least, that's really the only difference as far as I understand it thus far. So really, we're discussing self-defence in general now more than SYG or castle doctrine. Because we're basically discussing how long you should spend deciding if someone is a threat before taking action and not whether or not anyone should be attempting to flee.
Properly on topic, well sort of, what do you guys think would have happened if Martin had somehow killed Zimmerman during the altercation instead of the other way around? Could SYG have actually been successfully used to defend whichever one of them survived? I'm sort of thinking it possibly could. That's weird.
Has nothing to do with the law or the trial. The trial is over. The argument originally started when Llamas posted a survey complaining that people were calling Zimmerman racist, and using a ton of logical fallacies to assassinate Tray's character while promoting Zim's; that was what I was addressing.Would it be more ethical to not follow the law and find GZ guilty? You want chaos? That would have been chaos.
You internalize too much of what I say. If I don't directly accuse you of it, then I'm not talking about you.I'm letting the rest of this go because it's a huge waste of time, but I don't know why you've been countering me left and right when we pretty much agree. I don't know why it bothered you so much that I learned a few facts from a biased survey when, again, we pretty much agree. And even again in the above quoted text, you go into assumption that you don't think I can make, even though I never made them. This is the problem you have with labeling and pigeon-holing. You argue with me as though I'm one of those supposed Zimmerman supporters who thinks anyone who argues otherwise thinks Zimmerman was a racist. You argue with me like I think Zimmerman did nothing wrong. You bring up the same points you'd bring up to them, even though they don't apply to me.
And I don't see anything wrong with criticizing the survey for being horribly biased, even if we agree on points that exist independently of it. Isn't that the thing you love to call me on? Posting what you perceive to be a twisted version of facts in order to push an agenda? Yes. Yes it is.
Anyway, I've noticed you go through these same motions every time we argue: first you take my criticisms to heart (in this case, my original criticism of the survey had nothing whatsoever to do with you; I fixated on the survey and criticized it, and you jumped in defending it as if I had attacked you instead); then, after that argument is well under way, you decide that we agree and so why am I arguing with you? And then you finally throw up your hands and accuse me of "arguing with you as if you were someone else." If you would not take my arguments so personally, we would never have had a major disagreement in the first place. Not everything I say is about you.
You got me, I'm a secret racist against Zim. It's all part of the conspiracy. Nice catch.Also, why do you keep referring to Zimmerman by surname but Martin by first name? Very weird.
I disagree. Defending one's home is a much more personal matter because it is unambiguously your property. In public, it's not necessary for you to "stand your ground" so long as you can protect yourself, your family and your possessions. Unless someone's life is at risk (in which case existing law already permits retaliation/defensive conflict), there's no need for a civilian to try and play hero, potentially risking his or her own life as well as potentially resulting in other people getting hurt if the conflict spreads.Extending that protection to public places is hugely significant and not at all redundant. If castle doctrine could be amended to include public places then, and only then, would SYG be redundant. But that would be antithetical to the very concept of castle doctrine.
Pretty much. I have a tendency to write in train-of-thought, so I kinda articulated that as I was typing it. But yes. I would be much happier with self-defense laws if they weren't written in such a way that they are so easy to exploit using subjective, vaguely-defined criteria. It would also be nice if they had a wider spectrum of responses to violence, rather than "run away" or "kill someone." There are ways to handle violence without killing someone. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I really think it's a mistake to reduce every violent conflict to "kill them or run away."Your third point is good though it renders your first two points rather redundant. The law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. It encourages vigilante confrontations because the law is easy to abuse because the parameters are not well defined. All true, mostly redundant. Ultimately, it appears you only dislike that the law is vaguely defined and open to abuse. You seem unwilling or unable to find an ethical flaw in the spirit of the law. Surely then we just need better parameters governing its use?
No, and you're missing the point. The point is that civilians are supposed to retreat from the scene and allow trained law enforcement to take care of it. When civilians get unnecessarily involved in a crime, it greatly increases the likelihood that something will go wrong and somebody will get hurt. If you have a chance to stop someone who has a gun, for example, then power to you, but if you mess up and get somebody hurt, it's even worse than if you hadn't tried at all. And if you have a clean chance to get away and you choose not to in order to play hero, you're putting yourself and others in danger.Now this, this is a little scary. You think "professional" violence is fine but "civilian" violence is a problem?
It's not that "cops being violent is okay," it's that there's a *reason* we have cops, and that's because they are specially trained to deal with violent crimes. If you want the power to go around stopping criminals, then become a cop.
So what is the job of law enforcement, then? If we are not supposed to trust them to resolve violent crimes, what is the alternative? Anarchy? Would you abolish the police force? Or something else?My point? Just that you might be a little naive if you think it's fine to leave violence in the hands of "professionals" and you might be a little naive if you think you can rely on "professionals" to protect you.
That's why there's a difference between fighting at a Wal-Mart (for example), and fighting on a street in the middle of the night.I just feel strongly that we, and indeed all living things, have the right to defend ourselves and shouldn't have to rely on others to protect us if we don't want to. Furthermore, laws are rarely perfect. I suppose I would rather see a murderer go free than an innocent man go to prison.
Also, which is worse: an innocent man going to prison, or an innocent man being killed?
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."
Now, let me tell you about that 2010 case, because it's on the subject.
In 2010, a 73 year old man shot two girls who were robbing his house. The 2 girls were around 15 year old. They were from Eastern Europe. A polite press way to say they were Roms.
Huge debate here on wether it was justified or not.
But the law was applied. The girls didn't see him coming, they never came toward him and when they saw him, they tried to run. They didn't die though, only wounded.
He spent about a month in jail; now is out but he hasn't been judged yet, apparently (Criminal justice takes time in France ! ). But he will be sent before a court.
Because you don't try to kill someone simply because he entered your property without authorization, or because he was robbing your property.
Personnally, I am nothing but happy that a human life, even a thief's human life, is more valued than goods.