Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
A big flaming stink
Apr 26, 2010


Astarath posted:

I think you're missing his point

You're correct in saying Trayvon was a child. That's an inarguable fact. It's not being disputed. The mental imagery one associates with the word "child" is usually a person significantly younger than 17. So if you wanted to be more specific you'd say teenager or adolescent or something like that. Can we at least agree on that?

e: oh hello goatman my old friend

i dont know, i think the only reason one would distinguish between a 12 year old and a 17 year old getting murdered would be because they have certain preconceptions about the 17 year old.

for real a kid getting killed is a loving tragedy, and a 17 year old is a kid.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012


First Bass posted:

Engaging The Crybaby Tax's argument for even one moment, we're not trying to be specific, we're trying to convince some goon's racist mom that Trayvon Martin wasn't a thug and a gangbanger. For all intents and purposes, "child" is the superior nomenclature because it has pathos, and that's on top of being technically correct. I mean, ask Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin if they considered their 17 year-old son a child.

I disagree, rather anyone who doesn't already agree will probably percieve you as "arguing dirty" and in something like this you don't want to give them an easy escape like "well yes he's technically a child but you know that's not what people mean when they're ACTUALLY talking."

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

Yeah, "he's a child so no self-defense was necessary" is a bad argument because it is possible to be attacked by a 17-year-old and have to use force in self-defense. Trayvon was 6'1" and weighed 160lbs, which is the same size as me. I'm capable of posing a threat, I've been the same size since I was 17, and my 18th birthday didn't magically make me suddenly able to fight. Acknowledging that a 17-year-old is physically capable of posing a threat is not admitting that Trayvon was actually a threat to Zimmerman or that Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.

You don't need to give your opponent ammunition to say you're arguing in bad faith when the facts are so clear:

-Zimmerman wasn't on neighborhood watch duty that night and had no reason to be interrogating anyone
-Zimmerman had aready called the police, they were on their way, and the operator told him not to follow
-Zimmerman had a gun and Trayvon had a loving bag of candy
-Trayvon was staying in that neighborhood and had every right to be walking there
-By his own testimony, Zimmerman did not identify himself, say that he was neighborhood watch, or give Trayvon any indication that his intentions were peaceful when he followed and confronted a guy who was just walking home to his sister
-Trayvon tried to avoid a confrontation by escaping, but Zimmerman escalated it by continuing to stalk him
-Zimmerman has a history of violent behavior and poor impulse control including assaulting a cop, beating his wife, and threatening his girlfriend with a gun.
-Trayvon's history was that he smoked weed sometimes and texted his friend about some fights he'd been in that hadn't been serious enough for a police record, stuff that would be waved off as "boys will be boys" if Trayvon had been white, assuming they would even have seized a dead white kid's phone to look for ways to character assassinate him in the media (they wouldn't have).

Basically, Zimmerman had every chance in the world to avoid a confrontation and he chose to escalate it every time. Trayvon tried to avoid a confrontation but Zimmerman pursued him and the teen ended up dead. We'll never know exactly what happened in the interim, but ask your mom if she would think her life was in danger if a man carrying a gun in his waistband pursued her at dusk and started interrogating her without identifying herself. Ask her if she'd want you to cooperate with an armed stalker if you were in that situation, or if she'd hope that you'd run away or fight back.

Go ahead and try those. If your mom is just ignorant of the facts they may work, but on the other hand if she's that ignorant yet still calls a candy-toting teen a threat to a large armed man without finding out the facts, then she is probably just racist and the facts are unlikely to sway her.

Sorry 'bout your racist mom, op

on the left
Nov 2, 2013
I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt


VitalSigns posted:

You don't need to give your opponent ammunition to say you're arguing in bad faith when the facts are so clear:

-Zimmerman wasn't on neighborhood watch duty that night and had no reason to be interrogating anyone
-Zimmerman had aready called the police, they were on their way, and the operator told him not to follow
-Zimmerman had a gun and Trayvon had a loving bag of candy
-Trayvon was staying in that neighborhood and had every right to be walking there
-By his own testimony, Zimmerman did not identify himself, say that he was neighborhood watch, or give Trayvon any indication that his intentions were peaceful when he followed and confronted a guy who was just walking home to his sister
-Trayvon tried to avoid a confrontation by escaping, but Zimmerman escalated it by continuing to stalk him
-Zimmerman has a history of violent behavior and poor impulse control including assaulting a cop, beating his wife, and threatening his girlfriend with a gun.
-Trayvon's history was that he smoked weed sometimes and texted his friend about some fights he'd been in that hadn't been serious enough for a police record, stuff that would be waved off as "boys will be boys" if Trayvon had been white, assuming they would even have seized a dead white kid's phone to look for ways to character assassinate him in the media (they wouldn't have).

Keep in mind: none of these facts matter when it comes to the legal case for defense. If Trayvon initiated a physical confrontation and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, deadly force is allowed.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

on the left posted:

Keep in mind: none of these facts matter when it comes to the legal case for defense. If Trayvon initiated a physical confrontation and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, deadly force is allowed.

Oh sure, but we only have Zimmerman's word on that. Obviously we'll never know for sure what happened, but characterizing Trayvon as a "thug and a gangbanger" like the OP's mom did and completely ignoring Zimmerman's police record, history of violent behavior, and conscious series of steps to create and escalate an unnecessary confrontation that a police operator advised him against is racist. as. hell.

We can speculate all day on who assaulted whom first (there's some evidence that Zimmerman may have intitiated a confrontation by grabbing Trayvon, and when an armed man grabs you with no explanation there's a reasonable fear that your life is in danger), but there's enough evidence in my opinion to say that Zimmerman is most likely a murderer. A teenager is dead as a result of a series of poor decisions made by an adult, and absent some as-yet-unseen evidence that's enough to make Zimmerman a murderer in my book. It might not rise to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt (the jury didn't think so), but there's no excuse for the character assassination of Trayvon that OP's mom is doing here.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

There's no excuse for using a gun on an unarmed person, regardless of their age. Self-defense should not apply in situations where you had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation, but didn't.

on the left
Nov 2, 2013
I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt


Talmonis posted:

There's no excuse for using a gun on an unarmed person, regardless of their age. Self-defense should not apply in situations where you had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation, but didn't.

A surprise sex lasts only 30 seconds, but murder lasts forever. It's disgusting that we allow women to shoot a person raping them when they clearly had the chance to not wear revealing clothes or galavant around the bad parts of town.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

on the left posted:

A surprise sex lasts only 30 seconds, but murder lasts forever. It's disgusting that we allow women to shoot a person raping them when they clearly had the chance to not wear revealing clothes or galavant around the bad parts of town.

It's pretty pathetic that you would attempt to equate a higher standard of self-defense as being pro-surprise sex.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


Talmonis posted:

There's no excuse for using a gun on an unarmed person, regardless of their age. Self-defense should not apply in situations where you had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation, but didn't.

People who are especially small, weak, and/or frail can be justified in using a gun to defend themselves against a much larger and stronger attacker. Or people who cannot defend themselves adequately being assaulted by someone who can. Or any number of other scenarios.

Now, Trayvon v Zimmerman qualify for none of those, and Invader Zimmerman absolutely should have gotten manslaughter at least, but to say using a gun for self-defense against an unarmed person is never allowed is retarded.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Who What Now posted:

People who are especially small, weak, and/or frail can be justified in using a gun to defend themselves against a much larger and stronger attacker. Or people who cannot defend themselves adequately being assaulted by someone who can. Or any number of other scenarios.

Now, Trayvon v Zimmerman qualify for none of those, and Invader Zimmerman absolutely should have gotten manslaughter at least, but to say using a gun for self-defense against an unarmed person is never allowed is retarded.

I don't think it's justified unless they're trying to surprise sex or murder you. The possibility of being beaten up shouldn't result in killing someone.

I've been beaten up a few times in my life, and I'm still here. Killing someone should be an absolute last resort.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


Talmonis posted:

I don't think it's justified unless they're trying to surprise sex or murder you. The possibility of being beaten up shouldn't result in killing someone.

I've been beaten up a few times in my life, and I'm still here. Killing someone should be an absolute last resort.

So does the attacker have to verbally say "I am going to surprise sex and/or murder you" before using a gun is justified, or is a written and notarized proclamation of intent to do either the minimum?

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Who What Now posted:

So does the attacker have to verbally say "I am going to surprise sex and/or murder you" before using a gun is justified, or is a written and notarized proclamation of intent to do either the minimum?

By this same logic, it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone before they even lay a hand on you. That sort of thing is insane to me.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


Talmonis posted:

By this same logic, it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone before they even lay a hand on you. That sort of thing is insane to me.

In some cases, yes, shooting someone before they lay a hand on you is completely justified. Like say if a 4'10" 85lb person is being stalked by a 6'5" 250lb ex and has been attacked and abused physically multiple times before and finds them in their house.

Now, granted, that's a highly specific and unlikely scenario, but it's not impossible is the point. You can't have a blanketwide ban on something like self-defense.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Talmonis posted:

By this same logic, it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone before they even lay a hand on you. That sort of thing is insane to me.

Clearly it's reasonable to expect someone to wait to find out if their attacker is going to surprise sex and murder them or just surprise sex them before applying deadly force. X.X

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Who What Now posted:

In some cases, yes, shooting someone before they lay a hand on you is completely justified. Like say if a 4'10" 85lb person is being stalked by a 6'5" 250lb ex and has been attacked and abused physically multiple times before and finds them in their house.

Now, granted, that's a highly specific and unlikely scenario, but it's not impossible is the point. You can't have a blanketwide ban on something like self-defense.

You're right, but really, losing a fist fight should not give people carte blanche to shoot someone.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


Talmonis posted:

You're right, but really, losing a fist fight should not give people carte blanche to shoot someone.

No, it shouldn't. Each individual scenario should be assessed separately.

VVVVVVVVV

Are you loving kidding? This is exactly what I was talking about.

Who What Now fucked around with this message at Jul 14, 2014 around 16:10

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

wateroverfire posted:

Clearly it's reasonable to expect someone to wait to find out if their attacker is going to surprise sex and murder them or just surprise sex them before applying deadly force. X.X

"Officer, I felt threatened by this thug's complexion hoody and scary demeanor."

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Talmonis posted:

"Officer, I felt threatened by this thug's complexion hoody and scary demeanor."


"Officer, the dude was on top of me and bouncing my head off the ground"

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

wateroverfire posted:

"Officer, the dude was on top of me and bouncing my head off the ground"



Maybe you shouldn't be pursuing this mighty 160 lb. superthug through the streets against the advice of a police dispatcher, if you think you can't handle them in a fight without a gun. Or perhaps that was the plan all along?

Who What Now posted:

No, it shouldn't. Each individual scenario should be assessed separately.

VVVVVVVVV

Are you loving kidding? This is exactly what I was talking about.

I agree with you. Some people on the other hand, seem to think otherwise.

Talmonis fucked around with this message at Jul 14, 2014 around 16:25

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Talmonis posted:



Maybe you shouldn't be pursuing this mighty 160 lb. superthug through the streets against the advice of a police dispatcher, if you think you can't handle them in a fight without a gun. Or perhaps that was the plan all along?


Indeed, the right to defend yourself when in fear for your life is forfeit if in the opinion of some goons you "should have known better" or "were asking for it".

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


wateroverfire posted:

Indeed, the right to defend yourself when in fear for your life is forfeit if in the opinion of some goons you "should have known better" or "were asking for it".

Well Zimmerman almost certainly wasn't actually ever in any danger, and the "head slamming" probably didn't even happen.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

Jesus Christ y'all, we don't have to poo poo on the concept of self-defense in general. There are times when an unarmed 17-year-old could pose a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm to another person to warrant deadly force in self-defense. This was not one of those times*

*Disclaimer for wateroverfire/on the left, yes we can't rule out the scenario that Trayvon was swishing his sweet boy-rear end to attract predators and then luring them in closer with an erotic chase so they'll drop their guard, all the while lying about his intentions over the phone to his friend and pretending to be scared to give him plausibly deniability as he set a trap for Zimmerman, lying in wait to fall upon him, beat him senseless, and smash his head into the pavement until death. YMMV on whether this doubt is a reasonable or unreasonable one. The prosecution certainly believed this, but there is sworn testimony that the prosecutor is quote "real retarded".

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Who What Now posted:

Well Zimmerman almost certainly wasn't actually ever in any danger, and the "head slamming" probably didn't even happen.

Eh. Are we in a better position to assess that than the investigators and the jury?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


wateroverfire posted:

Eh. Are we in a better position to assess that than the investigators and the jury?

Investigators I really can't say, but yes we absolutely are in better positions to assess this than the jurors.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



VitalSigns posted:

Jesus Christ y'all, we don't have to poo poo on the concept of self-defense in general. There are times when an unarmed 17-year-old could pose a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm to another person to warrant deadly force in self-defense. This was not one of those times*

*Disclaimer for wateroverfire/on the left, yes we can't rule out the scenario that Trayvon was swishing his sweet boy-rear end to attract predators and then luring them in closer with an erotic chase so they'll drop their guard, all the while lying about his intentions over the phone to his friend and pretending to be scared to give him plausibly deniability as he set a trap for Zimmerman, lying in wait to fall upon him, beat him senseless, and smash his head into the pavement until death. YMMV on whether this doubt is a reasonable or unreasonable one. The prosecution certainly believed this, but there is sworn testimony that the prosecutor is quote "real retarded".

The thing is, the only element that had to be considered for the self defense claim was whether Zimmerman was getting his rear end kicked. How he came to be in that position, Trayvon´s state of mind, etc, was all irrelevant once the fight started (if there was a fight).

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Who What Now posted:

Investigators I really can't say, but yes we absolutely are in better positions to assess this than the jurors.

Why do you believe we're better informed than the jury was?

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

wateroverfire posted:

Eh. Are we in a better position to assess that than the investigators and the jury?

Didn't Zimmerman's lawyers manage to get his violent history excluded from the case? Because yeah, that does put us in a better position to assess the situation than they.

But anyway it doesn't matter because "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard to express an opinion on comedy site somethingawful dot com. Now be honest: do you consider O.J. Simpson to be innocent of all criminal charges because he was acquitted by a court and therefore you've never expressed an opinion that the case was wrongly decided?

wateroverfire posted:

The thing is, the only element that had to be considered for the self defense claim was whether Zimmerman was getting his rear end kicked. How he came to be in that position, Trayvon´s state of mind, etc, was all irrelevant once the fight started (if there was a fight).

Why doesn't Trayvon have the right to use deadly force in self-defense after being stalked by a stranger with a firearm who interrogated him and grabbed him? Or did Trayvon require a notarized statement that Zimmerman planned to surprise sex or murder him before being allowed to try to render an armed aggressor incapable of harming him?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at Jul 14, 2014 around 16:54

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


wateroverfire posted:

Why do you believe we're better informed than the jury was?

Because the jurors were specifically chosen to be the least informed and most manipulatable people they could find. And because I watched the exact same trial they did.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Mycroft Holmes posted:

I was just having an argument with my mother about the Trayvon Martin case. She says that he was a thug and a gangbanger. I vehemently disagree. She said she would change her mind if I provided evidence that he was not, or evidence that George Zimmerman was a violent shithead. Could someone link me to a takedown of this talking point?

Your mom is not going to change her mind if you provide evidence, mainly because you can't. There is no evidence that Martin was a thug or gangbanger, there are only minor things like smoking weed and getting in trouble that's easily ascribed to being a teenage male. You cannot present negative evidence to your mom. Your mom is suspicious of black youth and is predisposed to think of them naturally as criminals. Congratulations.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

wateroverfire posted:

The thing is, the only element that had to be considered for the self defense claim was whether Zimmerman was getting his rear end kicked. How he came to be in that position, Trayvon´s state of mind, etc, was all irrelevant once the fight started (if there was a fight).

And this is utter and complete bullshit. Picking fights and killing people when you lose should not be considered self defense in any reasonable sense of the term.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

Talmonis posted:

And this is utter and complete bullshit. Picking fights and killing people when you lose should not be considered self defense in any reasonable sense of the term.

No see after escalating the confrontation at every turn, Zimmerman started to lose and was trying to get away so it was reasonable to shoot-to-kill.

However it was not reasonable for Trayvon to use force against the armed belligerent stranger who had stalked and accosted him because without a signed, notarized statement that Zimmerman intended to surprise sex and murder him, a reasonable person in Trayvon's position should conclude that he can just get up and walk away and the gun-toting man he'd been trading blows with wouldn't just shoot him in the back the second he did so.

(Nah just kidding the real reason the shooting was justified is because Trayvon should have known better than to be in a nice neighborhood at sundown)

YOLOsubmarine
Oct 19, 2004

Breaux, Breaux, you seen a defense around here anywhere!?


How do we know your mom isn't a gangbanger and a thug? I'm going to need to know her complete whereabouts for the past 30 years with corroborative evidence.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



NippleFloss posted:

How do we know your mom isn't a gangbanger and a thug? I'm going to need to know her complete whereabouts for the past 30 years with corroborative evidence.

I dont think OP's mom is a teenaged black male, so

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

--------->


Popular Thug Drink posted:

I dont think OP's mom is a teenaged black male, so

You don't know that his mom isn't trans-age and trans-ethnic. Check your privilege.

SlipUp
Sep 30, 2006

THUNDERDOME LOSER


Sure, the shooting was probably justified by law, but that really only serves to discredit the legitimacy of the law. Any case where the person attempting to de escalate the situation ends up legally shot dead is total poo poo.

Yeah, no one was there but Zimmerman's story was laughably bad. The only reason he got away with it is that nobody saw it happen.

*shoots a teenager point blank from below, is not touched by a drop of blood
*black teenager stands up, says "ya got me, partner..." falls over, dies, and miraculously rolls himself over
*florida jury says that's legit

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



VitalSigns posted:

Didn't Zimmerman's lawyers manage to get his violent history excluded from the case? Because yeah, that does put us in a better position to assess the situation than they.

It's not relevant and it's prejudicial, the same as Martin's history.

VitalSigns posted:

But anyway it doesn't matter because "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard to express an opinion on comedy site somethingawful dot com. Now be honest: do you consider O.J. Simpson to be innocent of all criminal charges because he was acquitted by a court and therefore you've never expressed an opinion that the case was wrongly decided?

People seem really sensitive about having their opinions challenged lately. The standard to express an opinion on SA is having a keyboard and an internet connection, and that's fine. People can express whatever opinions they want to. Right behind trolling and attention seeking, debating those opinions is what this forum is for.

In this case the self defense claim met all the criteria set forth by the state of Florida. If that seems unjust then take it up with the state.

If karma is a thing Zimmerman will confront another black dude late some Florida night who will turn out to be a plain clothes cop who shoots him for looking threatening. Then we can have an awkward thread about how horrible cops are but simultaneously how Zimmerman totally deserved it.


VitalSigns posted:

Why doesn't Trayvon have the right to use deadly force in self-defense after being stalked by a stranger with a firearm who interrogated him and grabbed him?

Well. Trayvon doesn't have to make a self defense claim.

But seriously if Trayvon had won and killed Zimmerman he'd be able to make the same self defense claim and get acquitted (possibly).

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

wateroverfire posted:

People seem really sensitive about having their opinions challenged lately. The standard to express an opinion on SA is having a keyboard and an internet connection, and that's fine. People can express whatever opinions they want to. Right behind trolling and attention seeking, debating those opinions is what this forum is for.

No no, you're using "but the jury decided this way" to shut down all discussion and debate, viz.

wateroverfire posted:

In this case the self defense claim met all the criteria set forth by the state of Florida. If that seems unjust then take it up with the state.

So unless you take jury trials as infallible gospel and never express opinions about other cases counter to what the jury decides (like say OJ Simpson: are you going to tell me you've never expressed the opinion that his trial was incorrectly decided?), then you're just arguing in bad faith because you don't want to discuss whether the actual facts met the criteria set forth by the state of Florida or not.

I mean, it's cool if you don't want to talk about it. We all know what the verdict was so pointing to it isn't adding anything to the discussion. If you don't want to talk about it, don't.

wateroverfire posted:

Well. Trayvon doesn't have to make a self defense claim.

But seriously if Trayvon had won and killed Zimmerman he'd be able to make the same self defense claim and get acquitted (possibly).

Doesn't it bother you a bit about the morality of the situation if who gets the death penalty and who walks comes down to who gets off the first shot? That seems like a really bad system for encouraging people to deescalate an axplosive (edit: can't decide whether to fix this typo with "explosive" or "blaxplosive" ) situation.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at Jul 14, 2014 around 19:12

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx


Fun Shoe

wateroverfire posted:

It's not relevant and it's prejudicial, the same as Martin's history.

There are critical differences.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



wateroverfire posted:

But seriously if Trayvon had won and killed Zimmerman he'd be able to make the same self defense claim and get acquitted (possibly).

A teenage boy is much less likely to beat a grown man to death than a cowardly wannabe cop with a gun and a plastic badge is to pick a fight with a teen and pull a gun when he starts losing.

Really the important thing to emphasize is that George Zimmerman started a fight with a minor and lost.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

A fight with a 6'1 160 lb. beanpole at that.

  • Locked thread