[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588566]Maybe there's a problem with that? The entire outrage about this case is that [i]the system itself[/i] is broken and it needs to be fixed.
Of course Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal; that's what the problem is. The problem here is that no action he committed over the course of pursuing, confronting, and shooting an innocent, unarmed teenager was illegal. There should probably be some sort of law stopping you from doing that.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, but this is simply a matter of opinion so there's no real need to argue over this.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588407]literally all illegal guns were legal guns at some point in their history save for, like, pipe rifles that singaporean gangs make in basement workshops but I think that this argument is really tangential to the point of this thread. Cosby's argument isn't about legal guns vs. illegal guns, it's about the societal mentality that justifies Zimmerman's actions leading up the shooting. Whether or not Zimmerman was actually defending his life when he shot Martin doesn't matter, he was still being a gung-ho vigilante when he decided to try to stop Martin on his own even though the police were already involved and Martin couldn't have conceivably presented any sort of a threat that would justify Zimmerman stepping in before the police arrived.[/QUOTE]
Well the truth of the matter is that our justice system is fundamentally broken.
The single most important link is the jury. Judges, police, lawyers, everyone else can fuck off. The jury is the seat of power.
But our modern legal system is so fucking convoluted that defending yourself is virtually impossible so the only affordable solution is to simply enter a plea bargain and go to prison.
Public defenders you say? Oh my they are the cruelest joke of them all.
"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"
Most assume the civilized meaning of this phrase. Something along the lines of:
"If paying for an attorney requires me to sell my home and car to afford my defense, I can get a public defender"
Thiiiiis isn't true in practice. The reality is more like
"If you have any property worth anything and can sell it to afford a lawyer, you aren't broke enough to get a public defender"
Keeping in mind that, if you prove yourself innocent, you exit the case either in debt to your lawyer, or minus any personal property of value.
But lets assume you have no personal property and get a public defender. Their case load is huge (Because, surprise, there are tons of links between poverty and crime resulting in a massive number of broke people in the justice system) and they are going to suggest that you plea bargain because, even if you are clearly innocent, they simply lack the time in the day to defend you.
So now we come to Zimmerman who has been charged. He must now afford an attorney somehow. This is a unique case so he can likely get someone to accept it free of charge simply as a result of the publicity. However minus the media attention, he'd likely basically go broke in an attempt to prove his innocence (possibly failing in the process and then being broke AND in prison) or accept a plea bargain and simply go straight to prison minus the jury trial.
Everything else in the US justice system is irrelevant until everyone charged with anything more serious than a ticket has a legitimate right to a jury trial. The most fundamental aspect of our justice system is broken and nobody even cares.
Everyone can piss and moan about Zimmerman, but the details of the case don't matter at all. There is no debate until the justice system isn't broken at the most basic of levels.
[QUOTE=MBB;35588630]I disagree, but this is simply a matter of opinion so there's no real need to argue over this.[/QUOTE]
well if you're not going to debate in this debate thread then you should probably be saddling up, partner.
fucking OP and title sucks noodles.
he didn't say "case about guns, not race". he said that people should focus on the gun part because getting rid of these guns would prevent black kids from being killed in the first place.
[quote]When you tell me that you're going to protect the neighborhood that I live in, I don't want you to have a gun. I want you to be able to see something, report it and get out of the way.[/quote]
which is absolutely something I agree with.
[editline]15th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35587826]yeah but zimmerman would be dead or injured[/QUOTE]
you must live in some alternative world where Trayvon approached Zimmerman and not the other way around.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35588743]you must live in some alternative world where Trayvon approached Zimmerman and not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
no I live in the real world where it's perfectly reasonable for the captain of the neighborhood watch to pursue a suspicious party within his jurisdiction
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588801]no I live in the real world where it's perfectly reasonable for the captain of the neighborhood watch to pursue a suspicious party within his jurisdiction[/QUOTE]
well I think you'd be surprised to know that the real world is totally screwed up. Did you hear that, in the real world just a few months ago, that a man pursued, confronted, and then shot a teenager on a public sidewalk and almost suffered no legal repercussions for it whatsoever? The real world sounds like it sucks and needs to be fixed and all those "real world" people who think that's reasonable must be really fucking crazy.
I'm so glad I live in faeryland where wanton vigilantism resulting in the deaths of innocent people isn't considered reasonable.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588801]no I live in the real world where it's perfectly reasonable for the captain of the neighborhood watch to pursue a suspicious party within his jurisdiction[/QUOTE]
that's not very reasonable at all.
the neighborhood watch shouldn't be a police force, it shouldn't have any jurisdiction at all.
and the race part comes in once you ask the same question every single person asks when a black person gets killed for no reason: was it because he was black?
there's been plenty of black people getting killed because they appeared "suspicious". to me it's not reasonable to say that some dude who thinks black kids are suspicious should be allowed to grab a gun and play police officer.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588824]well I think you'd be surprised to know that the real world is totally screwed up. Did you hear that, in the real world just a few months ago, that a man pursued, confronted, and then shot a teenager on a public sidewalk and almost suffered no legal repercussions for it whatsoever? The real world sounds like it sucks and needs to be fixed and all those "real world" people who think that's reasonable must be really fucking crazy.[/QUOTE]
his life and future have been ruined by the media, it's not like he's gotten off scot-free
FYI, Martin wasn't on a public sidewalk. Even though it was raining, he was walking on lawns and such. This made Zimmerman suspicious because there had been break-ins and he suspected Martin may have been casing the joint.
Although that doesn't justify his pursuit.
[QUOTE=Tea Guy;35588512]Or Zimmerman approached Martin with a hand gun out in the open, Martin panicked because he thought this random white guy who has been following him was gonna mug and shoot him so attempts to knock the weapon out of Zimmerman's hand, resulting in Martin knocking Zimmerman to the ground (where Zimmerman supposedly hit his head on the concrete). With Martin still on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoots Martin.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think Zimmerman's gun was even in his hand?
I mean, it had to have been in his hand when he shot him, that part's obvious, but I have no idea where you're getting the rest of this from
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588859]his life and future have been ruined by the media, it's not like he's gotten off scot-free[/QUOTE]
that's terrible. let's fix the laws and the system so that, next time something like this happens, instead of someone's life being ruined they just get arrested and charged with something like they would in a "reasonable" society.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588896]that's terrible. let's fix the laws and the system so that, next time something like this happens, instead of someone's life being ruined they just get arrested and charged with something like they would in a "reasonable" society.[/QUOTE]
this is a bit like arguing with a brick wall who has downs syndrome
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588896]that's terrible. let's fix the laws and the system so that, next time something like this happens, instead of someone's life being ruined they just get arrested and charged with something like they would in a "reasonable" society.[/QUOTE]
or at least when they murder black kids they shouldn't be allowed to have guns anymore.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588919]this is a bit like arguing with a brick wall who has downs syndrome[/QUOTE]
cool. instead of arguing lets just call each other retarded.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588859]his life and future have been ruined by the media, it's not like he's gotten off scot-free[/QUOTE]
people shaming you for killing someone doesn't make up for the fact that you walked away without legal prosecution
of course he's being tried now but that isn't the point
[editline]16th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588919]this is a bit like arguing with a brick wall who has downs syndrome[/QUOTE]
epic zing you really showed him im laughing out loud!!
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35588801]no I live in the real world where it's perfectly reasonable for the captain of the neighborhood watch to pursue a suspicious party within his jurisdiction[/QUOTE]
Apparently you must live on the TV show, because the neighborhood watch doesn't have any more authority than anybody else, and their explicit propose is to observe and report.
[quote=Neigborhood watch website]The defining difference between Neighborhood Watch and Citizen Patrol is their evolvement with law enforcement. While both assist law enforcement their roles are different. Neighborhood Watch reports suspicious activity in their neighborhood to law enforcement. Citizen Patrol works closely with law enforcement to assist their efforts. [/quote]
[quote=wikipedia]Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations. When suspecting criminal activities, members are encouraged to contact authorities and not to intervene.[/quote]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35588824]well I think you'd be surprised to know that the real world is totally screwed up. Did you hear that, in the real world just a few months ago, that a man pursued, confronted, and then shot a teenager on a public sidewalk and almost suffered no legal repercussions for it whatsoever? The real world sounds like it sucks and needs to be fixed and all those "real world" people who think that's reasonable must be really fucking crazy.
I'm so glad I live in faeryland where wanton vigilantism resulting in the deaths of innocent people isn't considered reasonable.[/QUOTE]
We have evidence that he followed Trayvon for a period of time, that's it. There's no evidence that he actually walked up and confronted Trayvon, and his claim is that it was Trayvon instead who confronted and assaulted him from behind. He claims that he fired the gun because Trayvon was assaulting him violently enough to where he believed his life to be threatened.
We don't have evidence that this is wanton vigilantism and there is currently no evidence at this moment disputing his self defense charge. It seems a lot of you guys have already made up your minds about this case despite the fact that we all have very little solid evidence about what took place.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35588933]or at least when they murder black kids they shouldn't be allowed to have guns anymore.[/QUOTE]
When they murder anyone, regardless of age or race, they shouldn't be allowed to have any type of weapon. Although, they should probably also be spending the rest of their life in prison, so...
[QUOTE=Noble;35589181]We have evidence that he followed Trayvon for a period of time, that's it. There's no evidence that he actually walked up and confronted Trayvon, and his claim is that it was Trayvon instead who confronted and assaulted him from behind. He claims that he fired the gun because Trayvon was assaulting him violently enough to where he believed his life to be threatened.
We don't have evidence that this is wanton vigilantism and there is currently no evidence at this moment disputing his self defense charge. It seems a lot of you guys have already made up your minds about this case despite the fact that we all have very little solid evidence about what took place.[/QUOTE]
honest question: in stand your ground trials, is burden of proof on the defendant or the victim/prosecution?
because if its not on the defendant the law is broken badly
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35589561]honest question: in stand your ground trials, is burden of proof on the defendant or the victim/prosecution?
because if its not on the defendant the law is broken badly[/QUOTE]
It's on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense.
So, innocent before proven guilty.
At first I thought Cosby was saying that's what the case is made out to be, not what it should be.
Then I read the article.
Jesus fuck why don't people listen to this guy
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35589561]honest question: in stand your ground trials, is burden of proof on the defendant or the victim/prosecution?
because if its not on the defendant the law is broken badly[/QUOTE]
See, I'm confused. How was this case an instance of "stand your ground"? On all accounts Zimmerman was on the move when he fired - he had left his house and was following Martin. It seems that shouldn't count as standing his ground - if Martin attacked him then it [I]could[/I] be self defense, but not ground-standing.
[QUOTE=Deaglez7;35584791]Brb, going to store to get Pudding Pops.[/QUOTE]
From your local convenience store?
In Florida?
[QUOTE=MBB;35589621]It's on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense.
So, innocent before proven guilty.[/QUOTE]
yeah then thats awful and the law needs to be revised
its not "innocent until proven guilty", you've already been proven to be the killer, now it's up to you to explain WHY it was justified and WHY it was ok. just to reiterate: this is not "innocent until proven guilty". let that sink in because i know you and buttsex will have a ball trying to tell me that it is. it isn't. zimmerman has already been PROVEN to be guilty of killing trayvon martin, now it's up to HIM to provide a defense that explains this away. that's how non-stand your ground cases work and it's how this should work too. we have proof that you killed him, now what makes you innocent?
are you following my logic here?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35589741]yeah then thats awful and the law needs to be revised
its not "innocent until proven guilty", you've already been proven to be the killer, now it's up to you to explain WHY it was justified and WHY it was ok. just to reiterate: this is not "innocent until proven guilty". let that sink in because i know you and buttsex will have a ball trying to tell me that it is. it isn't. zimmerman has already been PROVEN to be guilty of killing trayvon martin, now it's up to HIM to provide a defense that explains this away. that's how non-stand your ground cases work and it's how this should work too. we have proof that you killed him, now what makes you innocent?
are you following my logic here?[/QUOTE]
Trayvon is the one who is innocent until he has been proven guilty of threatening Zimmerman's life, basically.
[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;35589693]See, I'm confused. How was this case an instance of "stand your ground"? On all accounts Zimmerman was on the move when he fired - he had left his house and was following Martin. It seems that shouldn't count as standing his ground - if Martin attacked him then it [I]could[/I] be self defense, but not ground-standing.[/QUOTE]
it means you don't have to flee, not that you don't have to stay at your house and hope for the best
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35589843]it means you don't have to flee, not that you don't have to stay at your house and hope for the best[/QUOTE]
hope for the best? I'm forgetting the part where Martin was kicking down doors and eating people and also it was a zombie apocalypse, which would be the only instance in which the police wouldn't show up to a gated neighborhood in less that 10 minutes flat.
you keep justifying Zimmerman's actions by saying "nothing he did was illegal". THAT'S THE POINT. THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.
[editline]15th April 2012[/editline]
Zimmerman left his house, got in his car, pursued a teenager who was walking down a public sidewalk. called 911. then he left his car, followed Martin at least some distance on foot. confronted martin. something happened. Then Zimmerman shot Martin and somehow didn't do anything illegal over the course of that entire, long process. None of those actions would constitute a crime under florida law. That's the big fucking problem here.
one of those things, be it pursuing someone who was doing nothing illegal, or confronting them while armed despite, again, the fact that they had done nothing illegal, or maybe just the specific action of [i]shooting them[/i] after you had done those things should be illegal. there should be a crime in there somewhere.
Florida's Stand Your Ground law is idiotic. I wonder how long until another murder/confrontation is nearly skipped over by using it as an excuse.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35589877]hope for the best? I'm forgetting the part where Martin was kicking down doors and eating people and also it was a zombie apocalypse, which would be the only instance in which the police wouldn't show up to a gated neighborhood in less that 10 minutes flat.
you keep justifying Zimmerman's actions by saying "nothing he did was illegal". THAT'S THE POINT. THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.
[editline]15th April 2012[/editline]
Zimmerman left his house, got in his car, pursued a teenager who was walking down a public sidewalk. called 911. then he left his car, followed Martin at least some distance on foot. confronted martin. something happened. Then Zimmerman shot Martin and somehow didn't do anything illegal over the course of that entire, long process. None of those actions would constitute a crime under florida law. That's the big fucking problem here.
one of those things, be it pursuing someone who was doing nothing illegal, or confronting them while armed despite, again, the fact that they had done nothing illegal, or maybe just the specific action of [i]shooting them[/i] after you had done those things should be illegal. there should be a crime in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]
don't know if you've noticed but I've stopped reading your posts because you're obviously not reading anything the opposing side is saying (you still think martin was on the sidewalk)
you seem to be too dense to see any point of view other than from in your ass so if you won't at least consider the arguments of the opposing side (and stop refuting our points with the same point every time) then I think my input is unnecessary
If your post is any indication you'll probably keep arguing with me anyway
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35590048]don't know if you've noticed but I've stopped reading your posts because you're obviously not reading anything the opposing side is saying (you still think martin was on the sidewalk)
you seem to be too dense to see any point of view other than from in your ass so if you won't at least consider the arguments of the opposing side (and stop refuting our points with the same point every time) then I think my input is unnecessary
If your post is any indication you'll probably keep arguing with me anyway[/QUOTE]
maybe you should just point out where he's wrong instead of assuming we all have the same information you do
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
