I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Funny Games

Asylum

Oddee

Gorilla Mask

Funny Stuff

Viva La Games

Pugorama

FreeGame Heaven

123 Games

Not Healthy

Angelsfire.nl

Comic World

Urlesque

Comics Alliance

eBaum Nation

CityRag

Hecklerspray

I hate retail

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

Lastminute Auct

Funny Videos

Pandasmash

Hot Games

Escape Games 24

Free Samples



Back to Listing

Texas Stand Your Ground Shooter Headed To Prison

Hits: 5953 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: SmagBoy1
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 11:23:28 AM
You're absolutely right, Musuko42, I am simply going on my own belief that Z caused the confrontation. But, it's a logical assumption. Z is the one who was concerned about M. Z is the one who called the police. Z is the one who pursued M after being told following was unnecessary. And, in the end, as I've said before, Z was the one with the gun, and thus the greater responsibility, IMHO, to exercise extreme caution and judgment.

Do you believe that Zimmerman following Martin constituted an initiation of a confrontation?


Yes. Clearly. As I've pointed out to Gerry below, you don't just follow a lone walker, at night, without *some* sort of intent. By his own testimony, Z did *not* identify himself as a citizen watch person, he didn't explain why he was following M., he did not take the opportunity to diffuse the situation.

Again, I'm not calling for his head, or for him to spend forever in prison. But, I am calling for some responsibilit

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 10:24:12 AM
@SmagBoy1

"Then, Z claims that M is running away. Z pursues!"

Following someone is not confronting someone.

He may have then confronted Martin, if he caught up to him, for instance, but as you rightly say: neither of us know for sure what happened at that point.

So what are you basing your belief that Zimmerman confronted Martin, rather than the other way around? Do you believe that Zimmerman following Martin constituted an initiation of a confrontation?

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:31:14 AM
Well, Musuko42, here's a super conservative site's version of events (I believe 5Cats gave us this that link). And, for purposes of discussion, even it's arguably biased presentation will work.

It says that Z reports to 911 that M is walking around the clubhouse and then checking Z out, walking toward Z's truck. No contact is made, no confrontation. Then, Z claims that M is running away. Z pursues! What happens next is anyone's guess, this is controversy, but, what's clear is that Z pursues M against the wishes of the 911 operator. The initial confrontation, then, seems clear, by all accounts, to be on Z.

Again, I'm not saying to lock him away forever, but, Z is *not* faultless here. He confronted a man, most likely at least somewhat aggressively from the sound of agitation in his voice from the call, and with a gun on. He

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:14:27 AM
@SmagBoy1

"That would seem consistent with his having confronted Martin in the first place."

Zimmerman's account is that Martin approached him on both occasions (once at the truck, and then during the fatal incident), not the other way around. There are no other witness statements or peices of evidence that I am aware of that says otherwise.

From where are you drawing your evidence to make that kind of statement?

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 8:48:12 AM
Gerry, it seems clear that either one of them could have deescalated the situation. I agree. Am I saying Martin was an angel? No. However, I am saying that I can understand if he felt he was being targeted because of his race (or sexual orientation, or gender, etc.) that he might get his back up a bit! Perhaps we all would in similar situations? If we get a little pissy and even push back, do we deserve to die?

And, to be sure, we're also painting Zimmerman as a saint if we say that he was *just* defending himself from an all out attack by Martin. Z could have walked away, too. And, do we know for sure that he wasn't bowing up his chest a little, too, when Martin came back? All rooster-like? That would seem consistent with his having confronted Martin in the first place. But we have no way of knowing now because only one of them is alive and healthy to tell the story. The other is dead.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33911 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 7:44:20 AM

SmagBoy, what causes a confrontation? If I see someone lurking around my building and I say "What are you doing here" have a I started a confrontation? If someone asked me what I was doing do I have to the right to attack because they started it by talking to me?

"Is Zimmerman completely faultless in that?"
Yes, absolutely Zimmerman has fault here, but that does not mean an actual law was broken that he can be charged with.

But doesn't Martin also have some responsability for his actions? Trayvon didn't deserve to die, but he also could have not gotten confrontational. He too could have walked away instead of turning and confronting Zimmerman. People are painting him to be some sainted angel he is not.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 7:32:37 AM
Fair enough, Gerry. But I still go back to the question of who is at fault for the confrontation? If you cause a confrontation that ends in the death of someone, don't you bear at least *some* responsibility? In the TX case, the shooter caused the confrontation (with, admittedly, obvious intentions, unlike Zimmerman), but, it's the same idea. An armed man caused a confrontation with an unarmed man, and then shot him. Is Zimmerman completely faultless in that? I just can't get there. Remember, I've said that I'm not supporting any sort of murder charges here, but, I do believe that Zimmerman bears *some* responsibility. Had he not confronted Martin, against 911 advice, Martin would be alive. Unless we're to believe that Martin sought out Zimmerman for no reason, which, of course, we know to be untrue. If you can say that you believe Zimmerman bears no responsibility, at all, I don't guess there's much I can say. But, just seems to me that he does.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33911 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 6:40:31 AM

SmagBoy
"a person should be allowed to use deadly force against a person using non-deadly force."

Things happen quickly and it can be difficult to determine in a few short seconds if the guy bashing your scull against the concrete will do it hard enough to kill you, just put you in a coma, or only cuase a concussion. Because Martin was unarmed does not mean he was not using deadly force. Or at least it reasonably seemed to potentially be deadly force to Zimmerman.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 4:07:17 AM
Not with murder charges, as I say, but, he sure as heck shouldn't be allowed to run around instigating situations and then killing people when he gets scared and feels he's gotten himself in a life threatening situation. And that's not ignoring the facts--those ARE the facts.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 4:05:05 AM
And yes! I agree with you guys! Zimmerman most assuredly has a right to defend himself! I don't even find that to be in question. But is it self defense when you instigate a confrontation and then get surprised when they get pissed off and want to rumble? What my point is is that, I don't believe (and this is my personal belief, but, it seems to make good logical, human sense) that a person should be allowed to use deadly force against a person using non-deadly force. For example, I agreed with the fact that TX brought a grand jury against the guy who killed the man molesting his daughter (and I'm a father of a daughter). I also agree with the finding of no charges, but, fact is, we shouldn't get to go around using deadly force in non-deadly situations.

Zimmerman got in over his head, having CAUSED THE SITUATION, then he got scared and killed a man simply because he had a gun. That's not self defense. That's irresponsible use of force. And it should be punished, IMHO

Xprez
Male, 30-39, Western US
 676 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:47:24 PM
Gerry is right. Someone following you, and even shouting obscenities at you, does not warrant a physical confrontation. You can go to court all day with "he called me this or that, so I attacked him" and you'll lose that case. Even though I believe Zimmerman was wrong in pursuing as far as he did, he does have the right to defend himself.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26320 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:54:48 PM
@SmagBoy: your ability to utterly ignore the facts is staggering!
You should be a politician!

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33911 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:57:33 PM

@ SmagBoy1, I'm not saying Zimmerman is a good guy. And if someone followed me, as you suggested, I would be bothered by it, but I would not jump them, beat them to the ground, punch their face, then beat their head against the concrete. At some point, even a scumbag like Zimmerman gets to defend himself.

paddy215
Male, 18-29, Europe
 1675 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:02:27 PM
To put it in the wise words of a Mr Tommy Lee Jones, this means "precisely dick" in relation to the George Zimmerman trial.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:41:24 PM
When you're carrying a gun, you should carry with it great responsibility, IMHO. To me, that's what Zimmerman needs to be punished for. As I said, not for murder, and not for years and years, but for the fact that he engaged an unarmed man who was doing nothing wrong, used his gun on the man when the tables were turned, and killed the man. One has an epic responsibility when one carries life-taking machines, IMHO. Zimmerman engaged Martin. Zimmerman then got into a situation in which he killed Martin (who, as I say, was unarmed). He needs to be punished for that. You don't get to just engage people and then when things don't go your way, shoot them.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:37:50 PM
Okay, Gerry, I won't argue that. But, how would you feel, if, while walking down the street, at night, alone, not doing anything wrong, some guy starts obviously and clearly following you? *That* was the initial act right there. You're going to notice that. Your fight or flight instincts are already going to kick in. He's already gotten under your skin, regardless of if you choose to run or to turn and ask him why he's harassing you. He's already put you in a defensive position.


eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 522 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:33:15 PM
@SmagBoy1 Zimmerman didn't confront Treyvon with a gun. It was a concealed weapon that he had a permit for. This guy confronted people with his gun drawn.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33911 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:29:17 PM

"But, he *did*, while armed with a deadly weapon, engage an unarmed man with intent to harass."

Not true. Fact: While armed, he followed a suspicious individual and reported same to police dispatcher. Both Zimmerman's account and Martin's girlfriend agree Martin turned on Zimmerman first. "You got a effing problem!?"

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:56:42 PM
I didn't say they were parallel (as in identical). I said they were similar enough (and gave reasons why) to warrant looking at and considering from a philosophical standpoint. I'm not suggesting Zimmerman should be put away for life. Hell, I'm not even suggesting he should be charged with 1st degree or 2nd degree murder. But, he *did*, while armed with a deadly weapon, engage an unarmed man with intent to harass. He *did* escalate the situation which could have been diffused by simply walking away (which is something I believe is the responsibility of the person who instigates the confrontation). And, finally, he *did* shoot and kill an UNARMED man. So, while saying that the cases are not even similar in any way and calling me delusional is clearly your choice. I find it to be an ill-informed and illogical one.

highonhuffin
Male, 40-49, Western US
 180 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:35:28 PM
Submitter is *delusional* if submitter *believes* the cases are parallel other than both the accused are claiming 'stand your ground'.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:18:58 PM
Submitter actually *did* read the entire article. Submitter believes the cases to be far more parallel than responder believes. In my opinion, if ANY person with a gun decides to confront a person without a gun (or other deadly weapon) in any way that could be deemed aggressive or accusatory, said gun holder has an EXTREME responsibility to ensure that the situation HE CAUSES does not escalate. The guy in TX was obviously an ass just looking for a chance to use his gun on his neighbor. I'm not saying that was the case with Zimmerman. But, Zimmerman *did* have a gun, he did confront Martin (an unarmed man) and accuse him of being a common thug (his words are irrelevant here, his actions are what matters, and, like it or not, in hopping out and confronting Martin, that's what he did).

Are the situations identical? Clearly not. Are they similar enough to encourage a second look and some hard thought? IMHO, yes, they most assuredly are.

bacon_pie
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 2819 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:19:14 PM
I wonder if he would've gotten off if the law was called 'Dance Your Ground'.

Ilikelogic
Male, 40-49, Europe
 523 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:08:34 AM
Without knowing any US laws, it might make sense to defend oneself on one's own, private property, not on public or multiple parties owned ground. Correct or not?

eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 522 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:46:43 AM
Two different cases. Two different laws. Dumb.

tedgp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 3283 Posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:34:03 AM
Submitter obviously didnt read the entire article. Just the first sentence.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.