The politics of hoodie wearing

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And under the Florida law, David, Trayvon could use anything that came to hand to stop what he felt in his own judgement alone,
which under Florida law he cannot be held liable for, to eliminate any threat to his own life.

It has been repeatedly pointed out to u
that the statute requires that belief to have been "reasonable".
Attacking someone merely for following him is no better than attacking him
for being a Democrat, but in this case, it matters not,
in that Mr. Z is free.

MontereyJack wrote:

And given the circumstances, who had tried to avoid confrontation, who clearly [????]had no intention of getting into a fight,

He attacked the innocent Mr. Z from behind
and repeatedly pounded his innocent head against the sidewalk.

MontereyJack wrote:

who against advice forced a confrontation, who came into it with a weapon which was invented particularly for killing, who came in pissed at "the assholes always get away" and then chased one who "got away" but had done nothing wrong, who apparently didn't answer a question about why he was following someone who'd avoided him, and then immediately, according to Trayvon's girlfriend who heard it, was immediately involved in a struggle, a reasonable person would conclude that it was probably Zimmerman who started it. You of course are not reasonable, but only, always, refuse to countenance the possibility that there could ever be a fatally mistaken killing by the shooter under such circumstances.

Your absolute choice of words exaggerates my position.
I DO believe that victims of violence who have successfully killed their violent predators
shud be awarded tax credits, for valuable services rendered.

MontereyJack wrote:

You only, ever, distort and cherrypick the evidence and invent scenarios that have no basis in fact,
to try to exonerate the shooter. that ain't law, that's personal obsession, David.

I deny that. Its not obsession.
In contrast, I 'd love to see criminal prosecution
of the football coach who requested his football players
to violently attack and disable identified members
of the opposing team.

0 Replies

David says

Quote:

It has been repeatedly pointed out to u
that the statute requires that belief to have been "reasonable".

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that what is considered "reasonable" in Florida is far less than what Trayvon actually encountered.

If you attack someone from behind, the front of their head would hit the sidewalk (not the pavement), not the back of the head. We also know Trayvon asked him why he was following him. People rarely ask the back of someone's head a question, and it was certainly no surprise he was there since he asked the question. You are again inventing total hypotheticals as to what happened and then presenting them as if they were somehow facts. Only in your dreams, David. Not in the real world.

1 Reply

I think the coach should be held responsible too. That has no bearing on the case here, since so far Zimmerman is NOT being held responsible for his actions. The fact is a kid who went into this with no more intention than going out to get some candy and something for his little brother, and then get back home in time to watch the basketball game, somehow ended up dead at the hands of someone who thought wrongly he was "acting suspicious" and had a gun along. You turn the kid into a homicidal maniac and the vigilante into a saint who shouldn't be held accountable for a highly questionable, not to say vicious, act. And you base it on no concrete evidence at all. What's that old lawyer's adage, catch 'em in one misstatement and you discredit their entire testimony. Lotta misstatements, if not possibly outright lies from Zimmerman.

0 Replies

David, with what we all know is your well-honed sense of paranoia, do you seriously mean to tell me that if you were walking down the street at walking pace and someone followed you in an SUV travelling at walking pace, far below the normal SUV speed, and if you then went far away from where an SUV could travel, or anyone is unlikely to just HAPPEN to be, on a cold, rainy night, and then the guy shows up now on foot following you again you would think only "oh, yes, following someone is perfectly legal, I have no reason to think anything else, like maybe this guy wants me for some reason." Tell me you would just think he was out for an evening stroll and it had nothing to do with you and wasn't the least bit intimidating. Tell me that if it was you being followed you wouldn't have one hand on your gun and your paranoia system at full alert and I'll say you're bullshitting me.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David, with what we all know is your well-honed sense of paranoia,

I dunno, but I SUSPECT that u r posting hypocritically only pretending & faking
that u don't know that paranoia is ego centric, personal.
(Except for a moment, when someone took a shot at me),
I have never believed that anyone was after me, personally,
as distinct from being in a possibly risky situation.
For that reason, I have never posted anything paranoid.

MontereyJack wrote:

do you seriously mean to tell me that if you were walking down the street at walking pace and someone followed you in an SUV travelling at walking pace, far below the normal SUV speed, and if you then went far away from where an SUV could travel, or anyone is unlikely to just HAPPEN to be, on a cold, rainy night, and then the guy shows up now on foot following you again you would think only "oh, yes, following someone is perfectly legal, I have no reason to think anything else, like maybe this guy wants me for some reason." Tell me you would just think he was out for an evening stroll and it had nothing to do with you and wasn't the least bit intimidating.

I 'd be curious, thinking: "what the hell is this??"
but I woud not expose the follower to danger, nor harm him.
I 'd not draw on him, merely for following me.
I 'd not be angry. I 'd be curious.
I 'd probably inquire into the situtation,
suspecting that he wanted travel directions, or maybe mistaken id.,
or a very remote, unlikely chance of street robbery.

MontereyJack wrote:

Tell me that if it was you being followed
you wouldn't have one hand on your gun and your paranoia system
at full alert and I'll say you're bullshitting me.

I am very confident that NO ONE has ever been out to get me, personally,
nor interested in me in any way. That is not paranoia.
( I am certain that the gunshot incident was not personal. )
However, it is wise n prudent to remain "alert"
and to keep a hand on your gun, if in any doubt.
That does not hurt anything.

David

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

David says

DAVID wrote:

It has been repeatedly pointed out to u
that the statute requires that belief to have been "reasonable".

MontereyJack wrote:

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that what is considered "reasonable" in Florida
is far less than what Trayvon actually encountered.

I deny that; if it has been, I have not seen it. If u wanna allege that,
then please quote it here.

MontereyJack wrote:

If you attack someone from behind, the front of their head would hit the sidewalk
(not the pavement), not the back of the head.

Baloney, not if the victim (Mr. Z) is pulled over backward.
Additionally, according to news reports, he had a fx nose.

MontereyJack wrote:

We also know Trayvon asked him why he was following him. People rarely ask the back of someone's head a question,
and it was certainly no surprise he was there since he asked the question.

Your allegation is not plausible,
and it has no logical merit.
The suspected burglar coud have asked or said anything,
as he pulled him over backward; no surprize.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Would a reasonable person feel their life was so threatened by someone following them that killing the follower was justified? I don't think so.

But the law doesn't use the reasonable person standard. The person in the situation only has to reasonably think they are in danger. For prosecution they would have to prove the person didn't think that.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

]I 'd be curious, thinking: "what the hell is this??"
but I woud not expose the follower to danger, nor harm him.
I 'd not draw on him, merely for following me.
I 'd not be angry. I 'd be curious.
I 'd probably inquire into the situtation,
suspecting that he wanted travel directions, or maybe mistaken id.,
or a very remote, unlikely chance of street robbery.

David

I find it funny David, that you think the chances of a street robbery are REMOTE but Zimmerman felt the chances of Trayvon being there to commit theft were high.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max. I respect your engagement of people here who hold (sometimes vastly) different opinions. I think calm and open dialogue at least supports reasonable communication between people of varying backgrounds and opinions. I hope it never becomes impossible, or not worthy of attempting, to communicate.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, that was a very good post. I agree completely. I found it hard to understand why most people here seem to be hell-bent on not entertaining any of the points you mentioned. I was really heartened when some did.

Most of the sturm and drang on these pages seems like the usual two-party polarization that affects most other news events -- if you concede a point that may strengthen "the other group's side," you are a traitor to your group's cause. It leads to groupthink and talking points and mental blinders.

If Trayvon did break Zim's nose and bash his head against the sidewalk, he may still be innocent of everything but a frightened, hyperbolic defense. Alternately, Zim's worst crime may have been continuing to follow Trayvon after he was told there was no need. Though wrongheaded, what is the proper justice for erroneously following a kid, acting as a community watch guy -- if the kid turns on you and beats you in a way that you think it will end in your death; you have a weapon, and use it? That scenario certainly hasn't been proven - but it may be.

I admit readily that I'm like you and most people here: I made early judgments based on what I perceive - and then amended my opinion with new information. Right now, there's too much unknown. Waiting for medical reports on Zim. Also, how does one judge the similarity between a talking voice and a screaming voice? I wonder how certain experts can be with such wildly different modulations.
I don't think anyone should be comfortable having their opinion formed rigidly at this point - considering that we have almost no pertinent facts in this case.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Hey.
When I knew you intended going to Powell's on your visit to Portland, a bookstore I love from afar, I asked you to send me a bookmark. That's usually a piece of heavy paper that one uses to mark one's place in a book.
Bookstores generally give those away for free.

I thought that was not out of place as I had some year or two earlier sent you a New Yorker article (or a print of it) via US mail.
You were the one to want to send me a book. I thought about it a while, and decided, "why not", said I'd take you up on it, and wrote some possible titles for you.
It turned out to be trouble in that you got sick in Portland and didn't go to Powell's at all, instead ordering a book from there after you got home. I didn't ask you to do that.

No way I demanded a book from you. You misrepresent me.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It's interesting that no one seems to have noticed the story I linked to about the black man in Arizona who shot and killed a white man because he felt threatened and , most importantly, has not been arrested or charges.

The story is not even a week old and there is THIS:

Quote:

says Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. “Just because we don’t book a person immediately does not mean we don’t charge a person at a later date.”

The person shot started the confrontation according to the story. The investigation is ongoing. The police have not stated they won't make an arrest. It is very different at this point Finn. It took almost a month before the Trayvon case took off.

1 Reply

David says:

Quote:

The difference between Originalist American Libertarians and the evil liberals, is that WE want the good guys, the victims,
to have MORE power than your representatives: evil criminals.

No, David, one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that we don't want the bad guys to have guns and you do.

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I think it's highly unlikely that Trayvon actually would have beaten Zimmerman to death.

It takes a lot to actually beat someone to death. Fists are not very effective weapons.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that we don't want the bad guys to have guns and you do.

And the great irony of all this, eh, MJ, is that the US has more "guns" than any one country.

0 Replies

david,I'm not sure I see the irony when you contend, as you have, that criminals,convicted felons and drug dealers should have guns because they have the right to defend themselves too. Hypocrisy, though, when you then say citizens need guns because they have to defend themselves from criminals, convicted felons, and drug dealers with guns.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I think it's highly unlikely that Trayvon actually would have beaten Zimmerman to death.

It takes a lot to actually beat someone to death. Fists are not very effective weapons.

Unless you happen to be a martial arts expert and know the quickest routes to the most vulnerable spots. Which I doubt Trayvon was.

0 Replies

oh, sorryt, I misattributed the previous post to OmSigDavid, rather than JTT. The point remains valid, though. David has maintained that the bad guys have the right to, and should, arm themselves, and then says citizens need guns to protect themselves from the now well-armed bad guys. That's known as positive feedback. Positive feedback can totally destroy systems in which it happens.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I think the actual difference is we don't want the bad guys to be the only ones who have guns...

0 Replies

I'm not sure which side you're arguing from, Lash. David definitely wants the bad guys to have guns. He's said so repeatedly. He wants EVERYBODY, and that means everybody, armed and he has explicitly included criminals in that everybody. He thinks American gun shops should be able to lawfully and unrestrictedly sell heavy ordnance to Mexican drug cartels. Apparently anything short of tanks, and maybe those too if they could get their hands on some I think that's madness.

0 Replies

The politics of hoodie wearing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know