Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Tangent #654

There isn't anything anyone can "do" about it. Following me isn't a crime. Neither is me turning around long enough to suggest you get back to cornholing your maternal ancestor instead of sniffing my farts in broad daylight.

Your strawman game is getting disgracefully weak.

Thanks for giving me the legal justification to shoot you.

That is the issue. There is no physical evidence except Zimmerman being bruised. For all we know, Zimmerman pulled his gun and Martin subdued him. It explains the bruises on Zimmerman and lack of bruises on Martin. There's some physical evidence for you.

I don't disagree that he made a bad decision. I though that was a given considering how many times I've said "he's a teenager". Of course he made several bad decisions. This is why average citizens should not be attempting to subdue suspected criminals and why police officer should be specially trained to deal with teenagers.

Doesn't give anyone the right to kill a teenager for any reason.

Can you cite a qualified forensic analyst who supports your interpretation?

And it was a bit more than "bruising". Don't massage the facts to fit your preferred narrative.

If the teenager is a threat to their lives, they absolutely do have that right. Nobody is under any obligation to allow themselves to be beaten to death, no matter how much you dislike them.

How are you going to legitimately ask this question? Neither am I in any position to ask a qualified forensic analyst if it's possible, I'm also not in a position to ask a qualified forensic analyst if your scenario is possible.

No one is saying they should. What I am saying is that if you're stupid enough to put yourself in a situation - even with a teenager - that you can't get out of, you don't get to kill that person.

Because other, more qualified people analyzed the evidence and did not conclude as you did.

So, "I fucked up. I guess I'll just die now." ?

That's a rule a person only gets to impose on themself.

He had a fractured nasal cavity and abrasions on the back of his head. Stop lying.

The law disagrees. In every single state.

Uncle Albert in the Purge universe would be defending it because it was legal.
I can just hear him.
"Hey, don't wanna get purged? Buy strong locks, and steel shutters. Can't afford them? Work harder. ".

If you believe I derive righteousness from legality, you don't understand a single goddamn thing.

OK, yeah, I can see that.

But this isn't what the dispute is here. At some point reality in theory should kick in - at the time of the shooting Martin was indeed in the attempt of doing 'great bodily harm' to Zimmerman, who had already lost the fight, evidently without hurting Martin at all.

It's unfortunate, but anybody in that position has the right to defend themselves.

Fair enough. You are pretty strident on the personal responsibility at all costs side though.

It is possible to attain some regard for reason and conscience without the threat of consequence to enforce them. Some people even do the right thing when there is no reward and nobody around to praise them for it. Imagine that.

And that right there is what I'm getting at. Without media and second amendment assholes, Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder. It's too bad everyone was watching.

Sure. But it's folly to think that applies across entire societies. Public policy is there for a reason, and while it's a shame some idiots lower the bar, they exist and that bar needs to be there.

No, without politics and the court of public opinion, he would never have been charged, because the evidence did not support it.

The dead body of an unarmed teenager and a smoking gun doesn't support murder?

The folly is in treating people as collectives rather than individuals. It tempts diseased thinking.

No. It supports homicide, which must then be judged on the merits of evidence to determine whether it was justified or not. And yes, there are circumstances where shooting a teenager dead is 100% justified. Denying that particular reality does not grant anyone veto power over the facts.

So you keep claiming. In the meantime, there are numerous societies that have proven that they can do just that while providing healthcare, paid parental leave, mandatory vacation, free higher education, at near similar tax rates. All this does is give people more time to enjoy life and let them have longer lifespans. Oh, and they all say they are happier to boot.

Who had "near similar tax rates" on their Bullshit Bingo card?

This conversation appears to be about as fun as when we had it the first time, nine years ago.

The question isn't whether or not there are ever any circumstances in which a teenager should be shot, the question is was it justified here. And, no, it wasn't. Zimmerman fucked around and found out. Then, out of desperation, murdered his target because his target got the better of him.

I understand this is what you prefer to believe, but the evidence does not support it. I could only be more certain if I saw who threw the first punch, but I suspect even having 4k video footage wouldn't change some peoples' minds. Regardless, there are no circumstances where it is reasonable to expect someone to allow themselves to be beaten within an inch of their lives or beyond. None. It doesn't matter what stupidity led up to it. Nobody is obligated to endure life-threatening injury as penance for being an asshole.

It's maybe beside the point and I'm probably derailing a derailment, but I somehow cannot really look at the story and not think "how would this have played out without one of them having a gun"? I know, I know, I should know better. But I somehow have the feeling nobody would have died and those two people wouldn't even have ended up in that kind of situation to begin with.

I mean... Obviously there are assaults here too, and sometimes people get beaten to death. Its not exactly a frequent occurrence. Still I don't know how often someone, who in reality comes out of it with a broken nose, would fear for their life to the point that they would use a gun... if they had one.

Also, and this is probably the more important question, are ua and jenee still a thing? Asking for someone who cannot really keep up with WF history

Valid. But we don't know.

I put myself in either of their positions, and the confrontation doesn't happen at all. You don't go following strangers around or starting fistfights with strangers if you can avoid it, because the really real world is not like TV, and choices can have permanent consequences. You don't enter into a situation like that at all unless someone ending up dead is an acceptable outcome.

Incidentally, that goes for all random street violence.

If you want to be an android, might want to yank the anger chip out.
Otherwise...y'know....