Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

I think it is also unfair to begin painting people who are willing to get involved as being some kind of fringe loonies. This victim mentality where we have to allow professionals to help makes us all victims. I understand people who are tired of being victims and are willing to fight back. That doesn't make them all crazies.

There is a reason why leaving some level of situation to trained responders is the right thing to do in most circumstances though Tex, and it's well illustrated here. A properly trained responder is vastly more prepared to go into a situation, evaluate the situation, and be able to respond without making things worse. In a disturbingly large number of situations, an untrained person going into a situation with no equipment and no backup is very likely to make the situation worse.

 

In this case, for example, we have a guy who didn't have any options other than lethal force if things turned bad. Wasn't in the physical shape to overpower a 17 year old, wasn't carrying anything that could be used non-lethally (baton or taser), had no communication to know if help was available, had no training for how to diffuse that situation, and had no ability to compel the kid to respond to instructions. He made the situation vastly worse for everyone by entering in to it, and once he entered in to it, unless the kid submitted completely, the only plausible endgame was deadly force.

[Balta1701]

I don't believe a non aggravated version actually exists in modern law. Even the wiki article says toward the end that assault is basically assault no matter what.

After briefly glancing through Florida statutes this morning, felony assault/felony battery seems to require either a real intent to do permanent harm or involvement of something that could be determined to be a weapon. If a guy's head hit the ground by force, I'd imagine a prosecutor would know that they could win felony charges and try to get the defendant to plead out to the misdemeanor charge in exchange for a guilty plea.

[iamshack]

After briefly glancing through Florida statutes this morning, felony assault/felony battery seems to require either a real intent to do permanent harm or involvement of something that could be determined to be a weapon. If a guy's head hit the ground by force, I'd imagine a prosecutor would know that they could win felony charges and try to get the defendant to plead out to the misdemeanor charge in exchange for a guilty plea.

Unfortunately, we don't know that with any certainty whatsoever. With what we currently know about head injuries and brain trauma, I think your point is a better one now than it might have been even ten years ago (that inflicting head injuries could be construed as potential deadly force), but I don't think the witness testimony they have now is solid enough to establish that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk. What we have is lacerations (which, let's face it, is a nasty sounding term for "cuts" on the back of Zimmerman's head), and someone who might have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman banging Zimmerman's head on the ground.

 

I think what Jenks has been saying, however, is that there is nothing in this law that gives Zimmerman any more immunity than already existed under the self-defense doctrine in common law. The problem here is the investigation, whether it was botched or not, has not yielded evidence solid enough to apply either the codified law or the self-defense doctrine because we don't know who started the altercation or what even happened during the altercation.

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately, we don't know that with any certainty whatsoever. With what we currently know about head injuries and brain trauma, I think your point is a better one now than it might have been even ten years ago (that inflicting head injuries could be construed as potential deadly force), but I don't think the witness testimony they have now is solid enough to establish that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk. What we have is lacerations (which, let's face it, is a nasty sounding term for "cuts" on the back of Zimmerman's head), and someone who might have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman banging Zimmerman's head on the ground.

 

I think what Jenks has been saying, however, is that there is nothing in this law that gives Zimmerman any more immunity than already existed under the self-defense doctrine in common law. The problem here is the investigation, whether it was botched or not, has not yielded evidence solid enough to apply either the codified law or the self-defense doctrine because we don't know who started the altercation or what even happened during the altercation.

It wouldn't be hard at all to figure out whether the "lacerations" were caused by his head hitting the ground. And I still say that him having a duty to retreat even at that moment would have been darn important, but hey, at least we've been over it.

 

[iamshack]

It wouldn't be hard at all to figure out whether the "lacerations" were caused by his head hitting the ground. And I still say that him having a duty to retreat even at that moment would have been darn important, but hey, at least we've been over it.

But we don't have sufficient evidence that Martin inflicted the head lacerations. How do we know Zimmerman didn't fall off balance and hit his head?

 

As for the duty to retreat, I'm not sure at what moment you mean.

[Balta1701]

As for the duty to retreat, I'm not sure at what moment you mean.

To clarify, that it should have been his legal duty to extricate himself from that conflict, as it should have been Martin's legal duty to extricate himself from that conflict. I think we went into detail about why that is particularly important something like 15 pages ago and I don't wish to retype.

[iamshack]

To clarify, that it should have been his legal duty to extricate himself from that conflict, as it should have been Martin's legal duty to extricate himself from that conflict. I think we went into detail about why that is particularly important something like 15 pages ago and I don't wish to retype.

Yeah, the thread has been flowing in all sorts of directions and issues have been addressed and re-addressed with different hypotheticals several times and so it's just hard to reference certain comments.

 

The problem is, and what Jenks has been stating over and over again, is that this law does not inversely remove a duty to retreat from the common law self-defense doctrine by making it legal to stand your ground when faced with a great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony. The duty to retreat still exists if the elements of the common law self-defense doctrine weren't met, and the stand your ground law does not apply if the elements were not met. There really is no difference.

 

All this does is allow Zimmerman to argue the SYG law, but absent that codification, he would simply be arguing the self-defense doctrine in common law.

 

The legal duty to extricate themselves from the conflict still exists whether or not the SYG codification exists; they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Fact patterns that arise that involve such shaky evidence that we literally only know that two men were involved in an altercation and one of them is dead and the survivor has not been charged does not change any of that. It just means we can't ascertain with any certainty whether or not Zimmerman illegally killed Martin.

[MexSoxFan#1]

There is a reason why leaving some level of situation to trained responders is the right thing to do in most circumstances though Tex, and it's well illustrated here. A properly trained responder is vastly more prepared to go into a situation, evaluate the situation, and be able to respond without making things worse. In a disturbingly large number of situations, an untrained person going into a situation with no equipment and no backup is very likely to make the situation worse.

 

In this case, for example, we have a guy who didn't have any options other than lethal force if things turned bad. Wasn't in the physical shape to overpower a 17 year old, wasn't carrying anything that could be used non-lethally (baton or taser), had no communication to know if help was available, had no training for how to diffuse that situation, and had no ability to compel the kid to respond to instructions. He made the situation vastly worse for everyone by entering in to it, and once he entered in to it, unless the kid submitted completely, the only plausible endgame was deadly force.

Balta owning this thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) Told To Leave House Floor For Wearing Hoodie

 

[Balta1701]

Is that against House rules? If it isn't, then i'll be annoyed, if it is, then Meh.

[Y2HH]

Is that against House rules? If it isn't, then i'll be annoyed, if it is, then Meh.

 

It's probably viewed as unprofessional and disrespectful of the position...and in that environment, I'd have to say it is. That was nothing more than Rush trying to get people to look his way. Meh is right.

[Balta1701]

It's probably viewed as unprofessional and disrespectful of the position...and in that environment, I'd have to say it is. That was nothing more than Rush trying to get people to look his way. Meh is right.

I don't have a problem with people drawing attention to themselves on the House floor as long as its not against House rules. If they made up a new rule in order to kick him out, that troubles me.

[Y2HH]

I don't have a problem with people drawing attention to themselves on the House floor as long as its not against House rules. If they made up a new rule in order to kick him out, that troubles me.

 

I doubt they did...it just seems unprofessional. Draw attention to yourself in that position via your words...not dressing like a 17 year old...when you're not, even when it's a mere show of support.

 

What if Martin had been wearing a speedo when this happened...still appropriate of Rush? No. Rush needs to be professional in that arena...this isn't some side show...it's f***ing congress.

[Balta1701]

Can anybody imagine if you replaced a few of those names with, oh let's say, white counterparts? Instead of the Black Panthers, insert the Aryan Brotherhood. Instead of Louis Farrakhan, insert Pat Robertson. And instead of Spike Lee, perhaps Oliver Stone or some other crazy/asshole director. It'd be an affront to American freedom itself, the top news stories on every channel, racism running amok.

I don't know about the Farrahkan/Robertson one, but I've heard a lot more about the "New Black Panthers" than various Nazi groups. Who are the "Aryan Brotherhood"? I wouldn't be surprised if they had a bigger membership than the "New Black Panthers" but I haven't a clue.

 

The only one that would get attention is, of course, the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Y2HH]

I don't know specifically what the Aryan Brotherhood is. I was just going for the polar opposite of the Black Panthers. My point is that if a famous white person or group openly put a bounty out on a black man, or tweeted his address to the masses to incite violence against the person, it'd be kind of a f***ing enormous story.

 

No doubt. heh

[Balta1701]

I don't know specifically what the Aryan Brotherhood is. I was just going for the polar opposite of the Black Panthers. My point is that if a famous white person or group openly put a bounty out on a black man, or tweeted his address to the masses to incite violence against the person, it'd be kind of a f***ing enormous story.

Honestly, Left and right wing media figures do that with people's home information all the time. It's awful. The left did it last year with that cop who sprayed down the protestors at UC Irvine, I know Michelle Malkin did something similar to a group of protestors a few years ago on the right and although my memory is fuzzy I could have swore it happened to a family or kid who let the fact that they were uninsured be used as a debate point in the Health Care debate.

 

It's awful and I wish it was a crime. But it doesn't become the biggest story in the world, and it's not some liberal media conspiracy to make sure that Spike Lee is covered for. It doesn't wind up being a huge story because it's not a crime. It gets covered some, but that's it.

[Balta1701]

There's much more to it than the Spike Lee part. How in the hell does the Black Panther Party get away with openly putting a bounty on someone's head? Farrakhan sounds like a f***ing mob boss with the not-so-subtle threat of violence if things don't go the way he wants them to.

Hopefully they will wind up facing charges for that...but let's be clear what the New Black Panther party is...they're a hate group with a tiny membership. The only reason you've heard of them is that people have plenty to gain politically by making sure you hear of the outrageous things this tiny hate group does. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists over a thousand hate groups in this country, virtually none of whom get the kind of press the NBPP does. I don't think I'll be wrong in saying that there are many others larger and more influential than the NBPP, but I can't get the damn website to load today thank you very much University of Tennessee system (sigh).

 

You've heard about this "Bounty" because there is a group in the media who is very happy to make you hear about that bounty for political reasons. Have you heard much about the Michigan Hate Group that was broken up for trying to place bounties on elected officials? I only know of 1 website out of the many I read that covered that. They had some significant events in their courtroom proceedings earlier this week.

 

Hopefully there's some law that allows "NBPP" party members to be put into FBI custody over public incitements to violence. If not, there should be. That ought to fit under the umbrella of federal hate crime laws.

[Balta1701]

Good points, and I hope so as well.

 

I just get tired of the double standards for racism in this country. About a week ago, a guy I know on Facebook mentioned a story about Rihanna posting a racist picture on her Twitter account. It was mocking Chris Brown's new girlfriend, who is Filipino or something, using rice cakes. There was almost no backlash. He said that if someone like Taylor Swift had done something similar, she'd be forced to make a public apology, dropped from her label, etc. And I couldn't help but agree.

You've done it. You've posted a political issue in the filibuster that I simply cannot possibly care about. Congratulations. I'm going to the gym.

[iamshack]

Good points, and I hope so as well.

 

I just get tired of the double standards for racism in this country. About a week ago, a guy I know on Facebook mentioned a story about Rihanna posting a racist picture on her Twitter account. It was mocking Chris Brown's new girlfriend, who is Filipino or something, using rice cakes. There was almost no backlash. He said that if someone like Taylor Swift had done something similar, she'd be forced to make a public apology, dropped from her label, etc. And I couldn't help but agree.

I understand your frustration, and it is lame that there is a double standard that we face, but I think this is probably one of those prices the historically oppressive group has to pay (and is not going to receive a whole lot of pity for).

[Y2HH]

You've done it. You've posted a political issue in the filibuster that I simply cannot possibly care about. Congratulations. I'm going to the gym.

 

Only he's pretty much right.

[Balta1701]

Only he's pretty much right.

Great. Taylor Swift and whoever the other one was can fight that out.

[caulfield12]

But lots of church/anti-abortion groups have posted abortion doctors' names/addresses/cell numbers, etc., on the internet or places like Twitter and nothing has ever happened to them, correct?

 

Even in cases where doctors have been murdered/assassinated.

 

Speaking of bounties, I wonder what would have happened if one of the Saints players would have put an opposing player in a wheelchair or even killed someone (could they use the football is a dangerous game defense or could they be charged with aggravated assault for a "pre-planned" tackling or taking out of someone on a football field, which is inherently dangerous?)....of course, the Raiders with Jack Tatum did the same thing in the 70's and early 80's, it just wasn't such a legalistic society as we have today.

 

I guess there's no such thing as "fair" anymore, anyway. Would we have heard about the woman who walked into the propeller blade and lost her eye and hand/s if not for the fact that she was a young and statuesque blonde model? Their family is suing the company that insured the airplane and already turned down a $200,000 settlement simply because she made a mistake and was careless, and yet they want to fault someone for what happened.

 

If you get out of a prop plane, the first thing you do is look at where the blades are....are they still rotating, it should be human nature, as opposed to a jet engine.

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

I obviously don't give two s***s about Taylor Swift or Rihanna. I'm using it as an example.

 

He knows that.

 

Edit: I hope.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Y2HH

[caulfield12]

Great. Taylor Swift and whoever the other one was can fight that out.

 

 

The funny thing is that rice cakes aren't even that popular in the Philippines.

 

And yet, once again, there's always that double-standard about treating Asian people (Fukudome?) in a way that if it was happening to African-Americans, it would be a different story.

 

Once again, that perception that whites and Asians are the two dominant/power-holding ethnic groups in the world now, with the rise of China/Singapore/Korea/Japan/Taiwan, etc.

 

About the only example I can think of where someone got in trouble or lost their job was the "chink in the armor" headline at ESPN about Jeremy Lin, at the height of "Linsanity" a month or so ago.

 

I can't tell you how many times people make jokes about any Asian person eating a dog or cat. But if it's Fuzzy Zoeller talking about the Masters' dinner and Tiger Woods, boom, it's a national controversy.

 

I don't think this who has the power/position to be racist, whether blacks or Hispanics can be equally "reverse racist" etc., will ever end. You have arguments that are compelling on both sides.

 

 

I'll give another example within the Asian culture. Hong Kong fought and overturned a judicial decision that Filipina and Indonesian maids could get residency visas after living there for 7 years, just like people from all the rest of the world. So they specifically can exclude all maids/domestic servants from two specific countries from ever gaining residency.

 

There's just as much racism within a culture and there is from without.

Edited March 28, 2012 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

There's much more to it than the Spike Lee part. How in the hell does the Black Panther Party get away with openly putting a bounty on someone's head? Farrakhan sounds like a f***ing mob boss with the not-so-subtle threat of violence if things don't go the way he wants them to.

 

Of all people to pull a stunt like that, the guy who starred in, and directed, Do The Right Thing. Hypocrite.