Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:26 pm

I love this: http://youtu.be/rPOKm20wP4s -- it gets really good at around the 4:30 mark
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:23 pm

Lieris wrote:Not really, I just don't see the point in a drawn out argument (something I don't have the time for) with someone I know I will never see eye to eye with over the reliability of Zimmerman's testimony.

Given that you are a far right crazy who is not so subtly licking his lips at the thought of a civil war (something which will not happen outside the realm of Tea Party wet dreams) I am not going to argue with you either.


Wow nice ad hominem. The lip licking was a particularly nice, yet amazingly hypocritical touch given your stance on Zimmerman. For the record, you actually were not asked about the reliability of anyone's statement.

If you are just going to post judgements and personal attacks and not actually engage in discussion, you can kindly see your way out of the thread. Asylum or not, we aren't going to be feeding trolls.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:30 pm

I don't think Lieris is intentionally trolling, to be fair.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:24 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Lieris wrote:Not really, I just don't see the point in a drawn out argument (something I don't have the time for) with someone I know I will never see eye to eye with over the reliability of Zimmerman's testimony.

Given that you are a far right crazy who is not so subtly licking his lips at the thought of a civil war (something which will not happen outside the realm of Tea Party wet dreams) I am not going to argue with you either.


Wow nice ad hominem. The lip licking was a particularly nice, yet amazingly hypocritical touch given your stance on Zimmerman. For the record, you actually were not asked about the reliability of anyone's statement.

To anyone who doesn't believe Zimmerman's testimony is reliable, asking what they'd think if it was is totally irrelevant.

Because the reliability of his testimony is the real question, not whether a person's legal defence case says the right thing to get a not guilty charge (saying something that'd get a "not guilty" is the entire point of the defence case, after all).
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4954
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:07 am

Lieris wrote:Not really, I just don't see the point in a drawn out argument (something I don't have the time for) with someone I know I will never see eye to eye with over the reliability of Zimmerman's testimony.


I'm really confused by you.

Are you really as soapboxy as you are claiming to be here, or are you trolling us all?

Were you there in the bushes watching the zimmerman/trayvon confrontation go down? No? Then I don't trust your every word, and you shouldn't trust anyone who wasn't there.

The ACTUAL facts leave a lot to interpretation, and I won't start debating the actual trial. The outrage of "Open Season on black kids" etc, just makes me sick. It was ONE FREAKING TRIAL, with a lot of grey area.


Lieris wrote:Given that you are a far right crazy who is not so subtly licking his lips at the thought of a civil war (something which will not happen outside the realm of Tea Party wet dreams) I am not going to argue with you either.


This line leads me to believe you're simply trolling us all. I don't agree with a lot of his arguments, but I can guarantee you he's not insane, And not a crazy right-winger. Just a little bit mis-guided. (sorry, I can't fully support anyone who votes republican =P <3)
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
- Aubade Level 88+ Blood Elf Paladin - BloodScalp - Casual
- Awbade Level 85+ Blood Elf Death Knight - BloodScalp - Casual
- Awbabe Level 85+ Undead Mage - BloodScalp - Casual
Image
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4040
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:46 am

http://www.sandiego6.com/story/hastings ... n-20130714
So writer who pissed off the army dies in really weird accident, after having emailed some coworkers that he was into a really big story, and is cremated before the family can do an independent autopsy on the body.

Not sure what exactly happened, but the authorities aren't helping by reinforcing tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Lieris » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:00 am

KysenMurrin wrote:To anyone who doesn't believe Zimmerman's testimony is reliable, asking what they'd think if it was is totally irrelevant.

Because the reliability of his testimony is the real question, not whether a person's legal defence case says the right thing to get a not guilty charge (saying something that'd get a "not guilty" is the entire point of the defence case, after all).


Exactly, I think there is no point in a very predictable circular bad tempered argument. That's not "trolling" or being sanctimonious, I just don't feel the need to "win" at internet debates.

If you want to turn a blind eye to the very obvious institutional racism in your country (mine has it too btw) and aren't outraged at a man playing wannabe vigilante, chasing and shooting dead a teenager yet getting off scot free (and there wasn't even going to be a trial initially!) then there is something very wrong with you and it says a lot as to the value your society places on the lives of black people.

I also don't feel the need to discuss with someone who votes for a party who are openly racist, classist, homophobic and who hate women. To me that says enough about that person to not want to associate with them. You Americans might be so desensitised to the GOP hateful rhetoric that you give a free pass to such shameless bigotry but that's why their views are so mainstream in polite society, because you legitimise them instead of calling them out for being racist/misogynist etc. I might be blunt but at least I don't make excuses for the American Taliban. If you are a white, straight, able-bodied, financially solvent male then this stuff might not make you angry but if you have any measure of empathy within you then you should be able to at least see why it angers those who are being oppressed by far right politicians and their supporters who prop up the power structures that maintain the kyriarchy.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:39 am

That's absurd, the question was just a hypothetical to understand your position.

George Zimmerman was not on trial as a representative of the institution. This trial was not about America and our racial history. The trial was about the events that unfolded that evening, and that's the standard that must be used to evaluate it. Judging those events, and wanting to put a man in prison over anything other than his actions, is no different than all those terrible evils you mention. Rationalize it any way you want.

Lastly, we don't vote for parties here. There's plenty of variance between the individuals and the party platform itself. It's also the second time you levied those claims at me, and the last time you utterly refused (I'm starting to see a pattern) to defend them against any scrutiny when I asked. That said, I don't think we've actually had a discussion on our voting histories. My guess is that your assumptions on them are not very accurate, but clearly a lack of accurate information hasn't proven itself to be an obstacle to your prejudices, so flame away.

I don't care about the bluntness. The personal attacks are another issue, especially when you aren't willing to even discuss them. You just come in here like Rush Limbaugh inciting the crowd and flaming everyone you disagree with, while offering up precious little substance. This is still a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss, then don't bother participating.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:06 am

Let's look at the question, then.
Fridmarr wrote:
Lieris wrote:Zimmerman is a racist and a murderer <snip>

<snip>
So out of curiosity, if Zimmerman was returning to his truck, and was jumped by Martin, does that change your opinion?

I don't think there's any way to know for certain about the killing. But the racist part? Yes, he probably was, regardless of how the shooting happened.

He say a young black man he didn't recognise and assumed he was up to no good. To the point that during the 911 call he had clearly already passed judgement and was intent on keeping track of Martin to make sure he didn't get away with whatever suspicious thing he was supposedly there doing.

I'm not talking about big showy screaming-the-n-word racism here. This is internalised racist stereotyping that comes from exposure to the wider culture which is institutionally racist.

Did Zimmerman force a confrontation by following Martin? Did Martin attack Zimmerman after he'd stopped following him? We'll probably never know. What we do know is that he saw a young black man walking through his neighbourhood and immediately assumed guilt.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4954
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:24 am

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/201 ... cmpid=hpts
20 weeks is so yesterday! Lets ban abortion at 6 weeks!
Down the slippery slope in Texas I tell you.

The Ericsson guy was right, Texas is gonna see an increase in coathangers purchases. I should buy stock in them.

Am I allowed to call them old white rich dudes yet? :p
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:47 am

That's a big wall of text that still didn't answer or even remotely address the question.

For the record I don't care whether the question is answered or not. It was just a curiosity that is moot for me at this point.

Also, there's no question that Zimmerman was a bit paranoid, he had called 911 forty some times over the last eight years. I have no clue what the racial demographic of those calls were though.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:24 am

I still don't understand the point of the question. "If Zimmerman was really right to do what he did, would you still think he was wrong to do it?" is a dumb thing to ask.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4954
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:03 am

Yeah, we are on different wavelengths or something. 
 
You actually just kind of answered the question, though you then tried to use the answer in an illogical way.  Based on that post, you believe that Zimmerman would have been "right" had Martin jumped him on the way back to his truck.  That's pretty much the question I was asking, and that's it.  I'm not at all certain that the answer to that question is cut and dry. You seem to think that it is?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:56 am

Lieris wrote: You Americans might be so desensitised to the GOP hateful rhetoric that you give a free pass to such shameless bigotry but that's why their views are so mainstream in polite society, because you legitimise them instead of calling them out for being racist/misogynist etc. I might be blunt but at least I don't make excuses for the American Taliban.


Out of curiosity, do you paint the American Left with as broad brush associating the entire spectrum with their worst elements, or do you truly believe that rhetoric of "American Taliban"?

Can you explain what the Taliban are? Why do you call the GOP the American Taliban?

I'm honestly curious if you've given it some thought and came to your position independently, or if you're just repeating talking points and memes because that's all you know or have been exposed to, where you live.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:03 am

Zimmerman stopped being right when he pursued someone running away. The 911 transcript shows that he

1.) had a bias against martin. It doesn't address what it was. Unknown person, race, etc...
2.) No faith in the police to actually do something about it.

He was being a vigilante. While I don't feel this verdict sets a precedence of "open season on black people", it does set a precedence that vigilante behavior is acceptable.

And in Lieris defense, I have a very similar opinion of those who still in this day and age can stomach voting republican. It's a farce of a party that has given up it's core values, and sold out to the idea that the line was

Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as long as you believe the same things that I do.

It's not talking points, and rhetoric, and memes. it's the behavior of the republican party for over 12 calendar months now, and Texas and North Carolina are showing that it's a trend in behavior that is going to continue for at least the foreseeable future.

It ends up characterized in a negative light, because of the fact that the loudest and most vocal parts of the republican / tea party movement, also happen to be the racist (in that paula deen way), sexist, homophobic, rich old white guy that Klaud, Lieris, and I have all alluded to (or out right pointed at) in a mocking tone.

The Right (probably more the far right) are awful, dreadful people, who sold out the values of less government intrusion in personal life, in exchange for more votes from a slightly conservative, faithful block of voters. Team Rape, Texas, The Carolina catastrophe, it just keeps adding up, and making the republicans look like shit. Until the party does something about it, yes. They will be openly mocked. And they should be.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:09 am

I'm probably getting into something that might not be my business but I am guessing that Lieris had to deal with a lot of discrimination in their life, judging from the strong reactions to specific topics.

I'd say if someone is a victim of something, of course you are gonna lash out at anyone that defends similar behaviors to the one you were a victim of. Or at least that you perceive as defending such actions.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:28 am

Shoju wrote:Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as long as you believe the same things that I do.


How is the left any different?
It's not talking points, and rhetoric, and memes.


You honestly don't think "American Taliban" isn't rhetoric and a meme? It's a staggeringly effective meme that hits all kinds of notes that resonate some very powerful emotions. That doesn't mean it's accurate, and it builds strawmen that make it harder to have a real dialogue, when both sides are too busy tilting at imaginary windmills.

If I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't done intentionally by those in power.

WRT the Zimmerman Trial, it is hard to say that this one case will spur more vigilante behavior -- it's not like there aren't plenty of other similar cases on the books. This one is unique because it became so highly politicized; I think it is far more likely that there will be a lot of knee-jerk anti-SYG legislation (even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial) -- which will result in many more people being successfully prosecuted for self-defense.

Again, if I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't also in line with what the DoJ might want.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Flex » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:33 pm

(even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial)


Just because it wasn't invoked by the defense doesn't mean it was irrelevant to the trial.

The Judge's final jury instructions included the phrase "stand his ground".

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify
the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George
Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force
, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Juror B-37 quote of "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right." seems to imply that SYG was relevant towards the verdict.

The Defense arguing that Trayvon was the dominate one in the attack preventing Zimmerman from fleeing could have been weakened by using a SYG defense but works with a standard self-defense justifiable homicide defense.

Could be argued that the JudgeJury members are idiots and are mixing up the legal backgrounds between SYG and Self-Defense.
We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:43 pm

I don't think anyone will disagree that this would not have happened if he had staid in his vehicle.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:04 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:
Shoju wrote:Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as long as you believe the same things that I do.


How is the left any different?


Wait....

Wanting women to have the final say over their body
Wanting all people to be allowed to be married regardless of if their significant other is the same sex
Wanting to make sure that education, mental health, and health care are taken care of for all of our citizens,
and making sure that public assistance is available for those in need

is somehow trying to take away people's rights? Really? Man, I'm such a bastard for thinking that way.

I'm not telling people that they can't get married because it violates the teachings of my religion. I'm not telling women that even though SCOTUS gave them control over their bodies that I'm actively fighting against that. I'm not even telling Evangelicals and Fundamentalists that they are stupid for believing in God.

I want EVERYONE regardless of age, race, sex, and orientation to enjoy the same rights. I'm not telling people of faith that I want to close their churches. I'm telling them to stop trying to run everyone else's life by their beliefs. I'm telling them that this nation is not a theocracy, and it shouldn't be run as one. This nation isn't even founded as a Christian Nation, as was specifically noted, signed, and ratified in a treaty by one of the founding fathers, and unanimously ratified by congress at the time.

I'm saying, that if the Republican party truly still stood for less government intrusion in the private lives of it's citizens as is one of the foundational parts of their platform, they would stop being so fucking stupid about abortion, and gay marriage.

But yeah, I'm totally over here on the left telling people that they can't live their life how they want. :roll:

You honestly don't think "American Taliban" isn't rhetoric and a meme? It's a staggeringly effective meme that hits all kinds of notes that resonate some very powerful emotions. That doesn't mean it's accurate, and it builds strawmen that make it harder to have a real dialogue, when both sides are too busy tilting at imaginary windmills.


Is it hyperbolic? Probably. But there are grains of truth in it. There is a legitimate portion of the Right that is trying to exert control over the citizens of the United States based on a fundamental religious structure. It just so happens that Gay Marriage, and Abortion are the two easiest targets to point at. We could look at the ridiculousness of Kentucky, and their pushing of creationism to be taught in science alongside accepted science. We could look at many other examples if you wanted, but the easiest targets are the stances on Abortion and Gay Marriage.

And yes, Fridmarr, I will admit that there are those who oppose abortion on a scientific standing. And I am quite alright with that, and I think that is a noteworthy, and interesting position to take. I'm more than willing to engage in that dialogue. But let's not think for one second that the majority of the talking is being done by people who oppose it on a moral / religious standing, and not on a basis of science.

fuzzygeek wrote:If I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't done intentionally by those in power.


Well, probably, because we keep electing dumbshits on both sides of the aisle.

fuzzygeek wrote:WRT the Zimmerman Trial, it is hard to say that this one case will spur more vigilante behavior -- it's not like there aren't plenty of other similar cases on the books. This one is unique because it became so highly politicized; I think it is far more likely that there will be a lot of knee-jerk anti-SYG legislation (even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial) -- which will result in many more people being successfully prosecuted for self-defense.

Again, if I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't also in line with what the DoJ might want.


It's not just the Zimmerman trial. It's all the cases, like you said. Couple trials like this, and the loopholes in gun laws exposed by the Aurora Co Shooting (I'm speaking specifically, to the last report I read that showed that at least his firearms were legally purchased), and we are setting up a situation where Vigilante behavior is defendable, and acceptable. This is just the latest example.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:31 pm

I gotta second shoju on pretty much everything.

Should be noted that this does not mean i am giving a free pass on the left, which has done pretty bad recently, but hey.... Lesser of two evils.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:11 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Yeah, we are on different wavelengths or something. 
 
You actually just kind of answered the question, though you then tried to use the answer in an illogical way.  Based on that post, you believe that Zimmerman would have been "right" had Martin jumped him on the way back to his truck.  That's pretty much the question I was asking, and that's it.  I'm not at all certain that the answer to that question is cut and dry. You seem to think that it is?

I was pointing out that it was a dumb question, is all. Your hypothetical - if he was jumped on the way back to his car - makes it self-defense, and as such he wouldn't technically be a murderer. Hence your question was "If it wasn't murder, would you still think he was a murderer?" Which is a dumb fucking question.


Anyway.

As Shoju mentioned a few posts up, on the whole "open season on black kids" thing. Zimmerman was wrong to go following some kid around because of his suspicions. But the verdict sends the message to lots of other people that there's nothing wrong with doing that.

It's only a matter of time before someone sees somebody "suspicious" (and they're likely to be culturally primed to associate black males with crime) and thinks that following them and forcing a confrontation is okay because of this verdict.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4954
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:11 pm

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/fox_new ... _in_chief/
Fox news host: Obama is “Race-Baiter in Chief”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... -baiter-in (this link provides other similar tweets by the same host)
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:13 pm

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/J ... In_Dissent
TLDR: "Dear Supreme Court: Your Voting Rights Act decision was a pathetic piece of garbage with absolutely horrible legal reasoning, not to mention a complete betrayal of the principles you claim to believe in. Sincerely, Justice John Paul Stevens"
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:24 pm

Zimmerman invited confrontation when he followed, both in car and on foot, the "suspect". If I was walking through a neighborhood minding my own business and someone decided to stalk me, I might decide that I could defend myself by way of SYG. We don't know what happened because there were no witnesses, but presuming the "suspect" was innocent - as required by US law - the "suspect" had the right to stand his ground against a suspicious person following him. For all he knew, the "suspect" was in danger of being mugged.

"... the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."

I completely disagree.

There was another reasonable course, which was to avoid the confrontation by not pursuing. Zimmerman must not have believed the danger was real because he pursued the person. When faced with danger, humans respond with "fight or flight". As he clearly did not choose "flight", it is logical to conclude that he chose "fight" as evidenced by his pursuit. Had he believed the danger was real, he would have stayed in his car and waited for the police.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest