- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Posts
- 23,647
My bad, I heard he was Mexican. And it made sense to me because there was a lot of German immigration to Mexico and other parts of Latin America.
He's still not white.
The death of Trayvon Martin
- Thread starter LoneSage
- Start date
My bad, I heard he was Mexican. And it made sense to me because there was a lot of German immigration to Mexico and other parts of Latin America.
He's still not white.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 49,680
Not totally related at all but I'm just gonna put this here:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...eadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...eadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/
Tyranix95
Chang's Grocer
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Posts
- 4,593
I'm sorry Sheriff. I thouht you ILLEGALLY entered my house.
It's not my fault I don't know about the 4 Ammendment and Exigent Circumstances.
I thougth you had to have a Search Warrant or something.
You know you really should have just asked to come-in. I would have said, yes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
Although the law shouldn't be needed (The Indiana Supreme court was likely wrong).... That's some good shit.
The militarization of police HAS to stop.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
I know plenty of Hispanics that consider themselves to be white.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2001
- Posts
- 6,416
Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting
I had two situations as a kid where I was confronted by an adult in the middle of the night - one was a threat by a old kooky ex-marine that lived down the street and another was by a guy that already had the police on the phone by the time he came up to me (?). In both situations I just remained calm and nothing became heated. I can't help but wonder what variables would have changed my situation or changed the situation for this kid.
It may have been a good idea for this kid to call the cops instead of calling his girlfriend.
I had two situations as a kid where I was confronted by an adult in the middle of the night - one was a threat by a old kooky ex-marine that lived down the street and another was by a guy that already had the police on the phone by the time he came up to me (?). In both situations I just remained calm and nothing became heated. I can't help but wonder what variables would have changed my situation or changed the situation for this kid.
It may have been a good idea for this kid to call the cops instead of calling his girlfriend.
NeoTheranthrope
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,676
So much ignorant rambling on this thread (no so much, that it forces me to troll it unmercifully, but we'll see...): "I think it should..." "I would have..." "the law should..." ect. So much Monday-morning quarterbacking, it makes me physically ill.
The law isn't what you want it to be, the law (usually) what you think it is, the law dosen't have to make sense, and the law dosen't even have to be fair or just.
The law is what the law is.
"Use of force" law is just like copyright law, in that, it is a very complicated and nuanced, where normally simple questions have very long, complicated, and sometimes even varying answers, depending on jurisdiction. However, no one has ever died copying that floppy and all copyright-law actions a adjudicated in a safe, clean, well-lit courtroom, while on the other hand, "use of force"-law applies exclusively to that murkiest of grey-areas: "THE STREET", which later, has to be later sorted out in that same safe, clean, well-lit courtroom, after the fact.
IANAL and IANYL, but I have, because of my old work (armed slot-route security and armed private security) I have both training and experience that a normal person (even a normal gun-carrying person) does not have, nor is expected to have. In addition, I have two "use of force" incidences of my own under my belt (which is not a lot, compared to say... an actual police officer working in gang-land, but I've been there.). Which makes me a (lay-)expert on "use of force", as much as Vinny's girlfriend from the (fictional) movie My Cousin Vinny, was an (lay-)expert on cars.
So 'yall shut up. I'm expert-ing all up in this bitch!
---------------------------------------------------------------
It is my prediction and opinion that; unless significant political pressure is brought to bear, Zimemrman will not be charged with a crime on the criminal-law side. However on the civil-law side, unless Zimemrman retains a fantastic lawyer, he's going to lose the inevitable wrongful-death lawsuit in a big way.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is why: based on the bits of facts that have been slowly filtering through the media, Zimemrman made several mistakes in following Trayvon, which in themselves are not illegal, such as the act of following Teryvon itself, or Zimemrman brandishing his gun (by lifting his shirt to show it), but they will be what will probably cause Zimemrman to lose the wrongful-death civil case. The entire situation turns around on the crininal-law side, when Trayvon confronts Zimemrman. The crux of the "use of force" of this indecent, in that, a person who is armed getting punched and the head and potentially knocked-out, justifies use of deadly self-defense against the other person who is doing the punching. While I would like to know why some guy is following me, and personally, -I- would stop and question while I'm on the phone to 911 dispach. -I- would also absolutely NOT get physical with the guy following me unless he threw the first punch. Treyvon is under no circumstances justified in attacking Zimemrman, even if Zimemrman was acting like a jerk.
The legal reasoning is convoluted, but please bear with me:
Since the dawn of time, when two people who are not armed, are engaged in a fistfight, usually it's the one who is bigger, or stronger, or most-skilled, or any combination of the three who will win. However, since the advent of firearms, the math has changed significantly; when two people who are engaged in a fistfight and one of these two are armed, the one who is bigger, or stronger, or most-skilled, or any combination of the three; DOSEN'T MATTER ANYMORE. A fistfight with a person with a gun isn't a fistfight anymore; it's a gunfight. It's whoever ends up with the gun wins. Like that Ash line from Army of Darkness: "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun." (or alternatively: "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal ", but I don't like that quote...).
Getting punched, in itself, is not justification for utilizing deadly "use of force". Getting punched in the arm, kicked in the leg, ect hurts, but isn't enough justification for shooting someone. HOWEVER, getting punched in the head (or a male kicked in the testicles) is a different story. Any, punch to the head could potentially cause a concussion which lead to unconsciousness. When you are in possession of a firearm and you lose consciousness, you lose possession of that firearm (I had a coworker who was fired, on the spot, for this very reason. I had to take over his shifts afterward, in fact. That sleepy bastard.).
It's important for this opinion, to understand the concept of "possession" in regards to firearms in "use of force". It's a pretty complicated area of law, but to avoid long digression, I'll simplify it for this one case in this one incident; whoever is capable using the gun by having the attribute of (this is important) not being knocked out, has possession of the gun at the end of the fistfight. As Travon has already seen the gun and if Zimemrman is incapacitated, all Trayvon has to do is reach over and pick it up.
There is another important aspect of "possession" when it comes to firearms, in that; when a person who is in legal possession of a firearm loses it to a second person, the first person is in -all cases- morally, and some cases legally, responsible for what that second person does with that firearm. For instance: that firearm is used by the second person as an element in a robbery or tool for murder, the first person can be charged as an accomplice, or even be charged for the same crime as what the second person did.
Example: me and a friend are sitting in the living-room and talking. I show my friend my handgun in my possession and we talk about that, I put it down on the coffee table and walk into the kitchen with my friend still in the living room. While I am in the kitchen, I am no longer in possession of my handgun. It's still mine. I own it, but I am no longer in control of it, as I am in a different room. If my friend picks it up, I am responsible for what my friend does with my handgun, as I allowed him to get possession: if he takes it, walks out the door, and robs a store with it, I am an accomplice in that crime (even if I had no intention of committing any crime with my handgun).
So, all the above is part of the following legal reasoning: Zimemrman has a damn-good reason to not lose his firearm by being -not- knocked-out by someone who wishes him harm, and is in fact, already has him on the ground and is currently punching him in the face. Legally; if Zimemrman is unconscious, because Trayvon succeeded in knocking-out Zimemrman, Trayvon has possession of Zimemrman's gun (this is a BAD THING).
Getting to the point: Zimemrman does not have legal right to deadly "use of force" for simply getting punched, but when he was getting punched (this is a important but subtle difference) in the head where he could potentially get knocked out, and thus lose possession to Trayvon, is the flag that allowed Zimemrman the legal right to deadly "use of force" in this incident.
What Trayvon would have done with Zimemrman's firearm in unknown and unknowable, but ultimately immaterial. Zimemrman had already brandished, I.E. showed, his firearm (a "use of force" no-no, btw) to Teryvon before the first punch was thrown, so Treyvon knew it was there. So why would you attack an armed man?
Treyvon's "correct" actions were to A): call the police and have them sort it out, or B): make no action and wait for the police to sort things out, because Zimemrman had already called them, or C): walk away (even with Zimemrman following at a distance, which again; is not illegal!).
He instead, did D): try to PUNCH A MOTHERFUCKER OUT. Which, in this particular case, is enough to justify Zimemrman to legally utilize self-defence via deadly "use of force".
The law isn't what you want it to be, the law (usually) what you think it is, the law dosen't have to make sense, and the law dosen't even have to be fair or just.
The law is what the law is.
"Use of force" law is just like copyright law, in that, it is a very complicated and nuanced, where normally simple questions have very long, complicated, and sometimes even varying answers, depending on jurisdiction. However, no one has ever died copying that floppy and all copyright-law actions a adjudicated in a safe, clean, well-lit courtroom, while on the other hand, "use of force"-law applies exclusively to that murkiest of grey-areas: "THE STREET", which later, has to be later sorted out in that same safe, clean, well-lit courtroom, after the fact.
IANAL and IANYL, but I have, because of my old work (armed slot-route security and armed private security) I have both training and experience that a normal person (even a normal gun-carrying person) does not have, nor is expected to have. In addition, I have two "use of force" incidences of my own under my belt (which is not a lot, compared to say... an actual police officer working in gang-land, but I've been there.). Which makes me a (lay-)expert on "use of force", as much as Vinny's girlfriend from the (fictional) movie My Cousin Vinny, was an (lay-)expert on cars.
So 'yall shut up. I'm expert-ing all up in this bitch!
---------------------------------------------------------------
It is my prediction and opinion that; unless significant political pressure is brought to bear, Zimemrman will not be charged with a crime on the criminal-law side. However on the civil-law side, unless Zimemrman retains a fantastic lawyer, he's going to lose the inevitable wrongful-death lawsuit in a big way.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is why: based on the bits of facts that have been slowly filtering through the media, Zimemrman made several mistakes in following Trayvon, which in themselves are not illegal, such as the act of following Teryvon itself, or Zimemrman brandishing his gun (by lifting his shirt to show it), but they will be what will probably cause Zimemrman to lose the wrongful-death civil case. The entire situation turns around on the crininal-law side, when Trayvon confronts Zimemrman. The crux of the "use of force" of this indecent, in that, a person who is armed getting punched and the head and potentially knocked-out, justifies use of deadly self-defense against the other person who is doing the punching. While I would like to know why some guy is following me, and personally, -I- would stop and question while I'm on the phone to 911 dispach. -I- would also absolutely NOT get physical with the guy following me unless he threw the first punch. Treyvon is under no circumstances justified in attacking Zimemrman, even if Zimemrman was acting like a jerk.
The legal reasoning is convoluted, but please bear with me:
Since the dawn of time, when two people who are not armed, are engaged in a fistfight, usually it's the one who is bigger, or stronger, or most-skilled, or any combination of the three who will win. However, since the advent of firearms, the math has changed significantly; when two people who are engaged in a fistfight and one of these two are armed, the one who is bigger, or stronger, or most-skilled, or any combination of the three; DOSEN'T MATTER ANYMORE. A fistfight with a person with a gun isn't a fistfight anymore; it's a gunfight. It's whoever ends up with the gun wins. Like that Ash line from Army of Darkness: "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun." (or alternatively: "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal ", but I don't like that quote...).
Getting punched, in itself, is not justification for utilizing deadly "use of force". Getting punched in the arm, kicked in the leg, ect hurts, but isn't enough justification for shooting someone. HOWEVER, getting punched in the head (or a male kicked in the testicles) is a different story. Any, punch to the head could potentially cause a concussion which lead to unconsciousness. When you are in possession of a firearm and you lose consciousness, you lose possession of that firearm (I had a coworker who was fired, on the spot, for this very reason. I had to take over his shifts afterward, in fact. That sleepy bastard.).
It's important for this opinion, to understand the concept of "possession" in regards to firearms in "use of force". It's a pretty complicated area of law, but to avoid long digression, I'll simplify it for this one case in this one incident; whoever is capable using the gun by having the attribute of (this is important) not being knocked out, has possession of the gun at the end of the fistfight. As Travon has already seen the gun and if Zimemrman is incapacitated, all Trayvon has to do is reach over and pick it up.
There is another important aspect of "possession" when it comes to firearms, in that; when a person who is in legal possession of a firearm loses it to a second person, the first person is in -all cases- morally, and some cases legally, responsible for what that second person does with that firearm. For instance: that firearm is used by the second person as an element in a robbery or tool for murder, the first person can be charged as an accomplice, or even be charged for the same crime as what the second person did.
Example: me and a friend are sitting in the living-room and talking. I show my friend my handgun in my possession and we talk about that, I put it down on the coffee table and walk into the kitchen with my friend still in the living room. While I am in the kitchen, I am no longer in possession of my handgun. It's still mine. I own it, but I am no longer in control of it, as I am in a different room. If my friend picks it up, I am responsible for what my friend does with my handgun, as I allowed him to get possession: if he takes it, walks out the door, and robs a store with it, I am an accomplice in that crime (even if I had no intention of committing any crime with my handgun).
So, all the above is part of the following legal reasoning: Zimemrman has a damn-good reason to not lose his firearm by being -not- knocked-out by someone who wishes him harm, and is in fact, already has him on the ground and is currently punching him in the face. Legally; if Zimemrman is unconscious, because Trayvon succeeded in knocking-out Zimemrman, Trayvon has possession of Zimemrman's gun (this is a BAD THING).
Getting to the point: Zimemrman does not have legal right to deadly "use of force" for simply getting punched, but when he was getting punched (this is a important but subtle difference) in the head where he could potentially get knocked out, and thus lose possession to Trayvon, is the flag that allowed Zimemrman the legal right to deadly "use of force" in this incident.
What Trayvon would have done with Zimemrman's firearm in unknown and unknowable, but ultimately immaterial. Zimemrman had already brandished, I.E. showed, his firearm (a "use of force" no-no, btw) to Teryvon before the first punch was thrown, so Treyvon knew it was there. So why would you attack an armed man?
Treyvon's "correct" actions were to A): call the police and have them sort it out, or B): make no action and wait for the police to sort things out, because Zimemrman had already called them, or C): walk away (even with Zimemrman following at a distance, which again; is not illegal!).
He instead, did D): try to PUNCH A MOTHERFUCKER OUT. Which, in this particular case, is enough to justify Zimemrman to legally utilize self-defence via deadly "use of force".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Posts
- 34,074
Sorry....
The correct answer is:
E). NEVER CALL THE POLICE...
Nothing good ever comes out of a call to the police. If you are black, multiply that by a thousand.
The correct answer is:
E). NEVER CALL THE POLICE...
Nothing good ever comes out of a call to the police. If you are black, multiply that by a thousand.
NeoTheranthrope
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,676
We are (or at least I am) talking law here, not common-sense. Two completely different animals. Besides, the cops had already been called and were on the way.
NeoTheranthrope
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,676
Then go read a book or something.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 49,680
I'll just become a cop and my opinion will be infallible.
NeoTheranthrope
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,676
I would argue, but I know that's true.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 49,680
You couldn't argue against my state issued gun.
Your rampant self indulgence and grandiosity in the Egyptian Revolution thread came closer than any other posts on this site have to making me vomit.
I still didnt puke though.
Only lameass chumps get physically ill when other people state their opinions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,825
So wait what you are saying is Trayvon did not have the right to stand his ground when he was being stalked and by relation threaten.
This right here I know from experience to be true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2001
- Posts
- 6,416
Whether this kid was in the right or wrong, I bet he'd trade being dead for being disrespected by a cop.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,825
See the problem with that there is soliciting help from a cop can in worse case lead to death by cop if your black but routinely trumped up charges. Death by Zimemrman will at least be investigated. Death by cop darkie had a gun, case closed.