Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
the law that allowed this kid to be shot is racist.
largely because Trayvon Martin is black.
"He also appeared in a photograph posted to Instagram by his daughter Molly showing the family enjoying a "celebration" ice cream after opening statements. The accompanying caption "we beat stupidity" and hashtag #dadkilledit prompted the state attorney's office to demand an inquiry."
Jesus fucking Christ.
Speechless. There really are no words
"defence attorney West proved the most colourful and controversial character during the trial, opening his case with a questionable knock-knock joke"
and so as such i'm not at all qualified to make judgements on what i *think* has happened, but it's a very sad and unfortunate incident. I have my suspicions about what *might* have happened, as i suspect many people do, but i wouldn't like to say going off gut feeling and a few broadsheet articles.
to know that the issue of whether Zimmerman had considered Trayvon a threatening criminal because of his race, wasn't discussed. So how can we possibly have confidence that Trayvon wasn't killed because of latent racism? It wasn't even a question for the jury to consider.
You've clearly got a lot more faith in the US justice system than me.
i suppose you trust the law never to get anything wrong.
You have completely and utterly misunderstood what i meant. My gut feeling is that there's something, well A LOT wrong with the decision to acquit, i just feel uncomfortable saying so definitely when it's such a highly emotive case and i've heard very little of the evidence either way.
and it's impossible for us to know everything that passed with absolute certainty. But there are enough flaws and basic lapses that this has to leave a bad taste in the mouth.
The lack of initial coverage, the time it took to make an arrest, the attempts to discredit the victim - those, and several other things about the case are in the very, very least extremely, extremely questionable.
and a useful way of looking at it is imagining the roles reversed - i.e. a 17 year old African-American man armed with a handgun sees an unarmed Neighbourhood watch officer and follows him. There is subsequently a confrontation resulting in the 17 year old shooting the officer dead.
The youth claims self defence and that he feared for his life even though he presented with only minor injuries. In addition there is no trace of the youth's DNA on the officer despite the youth claiming the officer broke his nose. Furthermore, the youth's weapon was discharged only once (and not multiple times as is usual in a situation where somebody is being attacked and panicking).
I don't think it is a stretch to say that on these facts this case would never have even reached trial in Florida, let alone resulted in an acquital
this was actually taken down from their website
Absolutely outrageous and completely ridiculous. The whole thing is a farce and a travesty
it's such a disgusting case because a man could pursue someone else with a gun legally, simply because he didn't like the look of them.
It seems a completely alien concept to me that a supposedly civilised country can not only allow people to carry firearms, openly some of the time, but actually celebrates it as a right.
I can't even get my head around people being allowed to keep weapons on their premisis and use them as self defence against intruders. Being encrouraged to carry a gun in public and to use it should you feel under threat and without retreat...baffling.
is that people are surprised that a white man could be acquitted of killing a black man.
I think it's a terrible, shocking decision, I just wasn't particularly surprised to hear about it, because I doubt it's that unusual.
I think I've been misinterpreted here - nothing offensive was intended. This is a horrible and sad thing and that should be the end of it.
besides, i'd personally prefer to be surprised and disgusted than be the kind of person who tries to make some sort of meta point about a perfectly reasonable and even desirable reaction to what is essentially a tragedy
i thought you said you weren't coming back?
you weren't there, you don't fucking know. stop pretending that you do.
You're a moron because you're pretty obviously a moron.
you're doing that boring thing people on dis do where they make short blanket statements like 'jfc you idiot' because it's approximately in line with the general feeling in the thread.
i just remember you doing this in several other threads, like when the Boston Marathon bombs went off, and when the Sandy Hook shootings happened, etc, etc. Kind of your M.O, isn't it. Not comparing those incidents are like-for-like, obviously, but it makes sense people might feel stronger about more serious issues, so it might be an idea to save the trolling for more lighthearted discussions, idk, just an idea.
but anyone who 'trolls' in these threads is a psychopath
you're so reactionary sometimes it's hilarious. calm yourself.
how do you feel about it now?
take your time.
An angry man, despite being told not to, hunted down a minor and shot him dead.
There are always some disputed facts, it is one man's word against a child's, except it isn't because one of them is no longer alive.
you don't know that. that's the point.
also calling trayvon a child is a bit facetious and you know it.
whatever, pick your verbs and pronouns.
no evidence of that
he said he was beginning to but then stopped when the police asked him to. so again, no evidence of that.
maybe he did do those things, i don't know. neither do you.
you are being a bit silly bud, but i reckon you know that.
let me know when you're done pretending you know what happened and we'll have a grown up discussion about it.
in that it was reasonable to acquit him given the state's laws -
1. In what significant way - that we are not - were the jury privy to 'the facts'? In other words, given that they listened to both the defense and prosecution's version of events, at what point did they get 'the facts' that led them to reach a reasonable conclusion, that we are not able to do.
2. If he hadn't been acquitted, would you still be urging us not to pass judgement?
no i didn't.
answer the questions
i'm saying the stand your ground law, or any law that gives a citizen the legal right to take things into their own hands - with deadly force - is irresponsible at best.
but what's done was done, and the jury were in a difficult position. i have absolutely no opinion on whether they made the right one under those circumstances that were unnecessarily constrictive by the laws in place.
detached, ultra relativist, hyper-cynical musing on the prevailing liberal ethos that may or may not be colouring public reaction...
Is not clever or informative or even that useful, it can come across as childish point scoring contrarianism is situations like this.
seems completely reasonable not to assume facts, but there you go
Nobody actually wants to have an argument in this thread. If you're baffled by people ITT, take a look uhhh all over the Internet. Nobody is saying the jury reached a perverse verdict or erred in establishing facts. What most people are expressing is how sad they feel that this case has starkly confirmed how inadequate and unjust the entire criminal justice system is.
''nobody is saying the jury reached a perverse verdict''
um yes they are? that's exactly my point. everybody's so sure about their opinion on something of which they couldn't possibly KNOW enough details to make a decision as firm as that. sorry if that bothers you.
Read this http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_acquittal_blame_florida_for_trayvon_martin_s_death.html
99% of everybody reacting to this aren't getting into a knot about it because of the unjust state laws. they're upset because what they assumed happened didn't get the outcome they wanted.
i obviously agree that the law itself is largely responsible for any of this even happening in the first place, but it really has no basis with the knee-jerk reaction of everybody's prejudices that have spilled out since last night.
''unarmed black teenagers''
the same unarmed black teenager that was allegedly reaching for zimmerman's gun to kill him while physically assaulting him? not saying i believe that's what happened, but your wording clearly indicates a degree of innocence that isn't as clear-cut as you want it to be.
don't think anyone's claiming/claimed that it was cold blooded murder. ps. please leave the boards
'cold-blooded murder' implies it was done without emotion/methodically/, that clearly wasn't the case here. you're deliberately phrasing things a certain way
i can see why the phrase 'hunted down' was used, even if it's a bit extreme - just read any number of (fairly neutral) articles about his actions on the night in question. why was he even following the kid in the first place, etc.
there are no facts that support the theory that he did go out of his way to do that.
his motivations are suspect to say the very least, and he handled the whole thing like an idiot....but none of those things represent facts that he went out of his way to commit murder.
i'll just depart with the point that if you really think it's unreasonable to have a strong opinion on the plausibility of the alleged facts of an incident and its legal and ethical implications unless you were LITERALLY THERE WATCHING IN THE FLESH, you must be a pretty fucking dull conversationalist
when the most vital details are completely missing. you can still discuss it, but it's difficult for anybody to do that without every sentence being laced with assumptions.
doing this again.
You ought to try a bit harder.
but whatever i guess
the whole thing is beyond tragic
The 'side' where its not a good thing that someone can shoot another person? The 'side' that questions the huge discrepancies in how US courts treat incidents like this?
I'm not sure I can feel strongly about this without taking a side, or that I need to have possession of the full and intimate facts of the case to feel strongly about it.
take a quick stroll over to any social networking site and you'll see it's filled with people that decided what they wanted the outcome to be and are now upset/overly joyous with what came from it.
how are you unable to feel that it's a tragic circumstance (as it always is when somebody has to die) without also conceding that there aren't enough facts to support a weighted opinion in favor of one party or the other.
being angry at the law is fine, those are the real facts that are not in dispute. but going back to my original objection, the general feeling from this isn't about that - it's about people not feeling like justice was served based upon assumptions that they have made regarding the case.
as opposed to having weighed the available facts and allegations and come to a conclusion about the most plausible reality of what happened?
they still wouldn't have enough knowledge to be in a position to make that kind of statement.
think it's obvious that it's one thing to say "based on this and that it seems like he followed him/confronted him" and the hysterical and angry assuredness with which nearly everybody has spewed their thoughts.
i think we both know, though, that the majority of people really don't know the intricate details and are being led by whatever the media they subscribe to has decided they believe. as is the case with basically everything ever.
not really pal. not really.
I think that's a fair representation of what a lot of people are angry about.
I guess I'm able to feel that it's a tragic cicumstance without also conceding that there aren't enough facts to support a weighted opinion in favour of one party or another because I'm not inclined to see this circumstance as some sort of polemic battleground in which someone wins and someone loses.
I think there's one party in all of this, and it lost. It didn't lose when Zimmerman was acquitted. It lost a long time before then.
but i disagree that most people are upset with the discrepancies in the application of the law. i mean, you know most people, right? they're thick as pig shit.
and while the general tone on dis is less reactionary and angry than what you get from most people, i still saw loads of the usual language that indicates a bias that can't exist without unreasonable assumptions. like that gawker article up top, ridiculous piece.
Law is a human invention right? It's not something we are biologically bound to. So it follows that law must serve some purpose for us or we would change or discard it. So it's there for the public good right? Or that's what any 'moral' (sorry to use a loaded word there) person would want it to be. So how dare you tell people that they are in the wrong for trying to safeguard the point of law? Not only that but to do it in such an obviously patronising way...'stop pretending'.
What you have just said is that you are perfectly in the right to waltz in and accuse people of unfairly judging without the facts (I don't think it's been disputed that he shot the guy and intended to kill him has it?) when actually there's nothing to suggest that at all.
So what would be the outcome if nobody disputed verdicts? Who benefits from that?
Let's just carry on condoning murder as long as nobody ever has an opinion.
i needed it
What's funny about murder? What's funny about raciism?
just wanted to state that I think crispin's responses in this subthread, (that I read rather than skimmed) seemed on the whole to be measured and reasonable, and in no way deserving of some of the hatred he's received.
- few members are ever banned permanently, only those who consistently upset a very large majority of the boards with obvious 'controversial' or irritating posts.
- most bannings (except for obvious extreme trolling or spamming) don't happen in a bubble over one incident. Those of us who can ban people also use the boards and so we can get a sense of what someone's M.O. is on here. This is one example of MANY where CA has gone at things like a half-arsed contrarian, causing a lot of bullshit. If, say, you'd posted what he posted I doubt it would have got quite the same reaction from the members nor would you likely be banned because you don't make a habit of it.
While i'm not a regular enough poster to have noticed multiple occasions of half-arsed contrarianism I find it a bit troubling that he's been banned today, as a result of this thread. If he's done nothing in this thread that warranted banning on it's own, then doing the same across multiple threads should not be deserving of a ban either.
Regardless of whether he was right or wrong, he was not the one calling others cunts and morons for having a differing stance, he was merely arguing his point of view.
Major disclaimer: I haven't read the other examples of CA arguing this point, so ignore what i've said here as appropriate.
manslaughter at the very least, surely. But I'm not sure how people can be so certain, for definite, 100% that it was racially motivated. I mean, it probably was, given what I've read about him.
Definitely concerning to see so many people seemingly having no issue or entirely supporting his actions,and are pretty obviously born out of racism and prejudice.
the verdict, however, certainly was.
you should probably mention that to somebody higher up, seems like important information
In terms of the analysis of the case and, crucially, what the jury was actually being asked to consider, it's a very good piece and by a lawyer.
'The jury could have faulted Zimmerman for starting the altercation with Martin and still believed him not guilty of murder, or even of manslaughter, which in Florida is a killing that has no legal justification. If the jury believed that once the physical fight began, Zimmerman reasonably feared he would suffer a grave bodily injury, then he gets off for self-defense.'
but that is very, very dodgy on NBC's part. but not really anything unusual at the same time.
But can you be tried for both murder and manslaughter at the same time, or is it one or the other? So if the state decides to try you for murder you can get away with something that was provably manslaughter? And would a retrial be allowed on a new charge?
but the normal practice is that they're charged as alternatives - so if the jury believes that the defendant killed the victim but lacked the culpability for murder, they can still return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
CrispinAlexander has actually managed to outdo himself in this thread. Can't wait for the next tragedy/atrocity to occur so he can come in with his usual "You have no right to an opinion on this" or "Why does anyone care about this" shtick.
What an absolute cunt.
Shouldn't have paid him any attention. The whole case is a real tragedy.
very easy to see shades of To Kill A Mockingbird in it but it sounds like the jury probably have interpreted the law 'correctly', because it sounds like Florida law does actually say that if you don't like the look of somebody it's acceptable to set off in pursuit of them with a gun, and that if they confront you in an aggressive way as a result of being annoyed you've followed them with a gun, it's fine to shoot them dead.
If the ethnicities had been reversed maybe the jury would have ruled in favour of the dead white guy because they'd have been more sympathetic and it's a massively fucking stupid law, but if they'd been successfully persuaded that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman once confronted they probably did do the 'right' thing.
I really do think that this is at least as much a tragedy of America's insane gun laws than race - the bottom line is that racist or not, Zimmerman seems to have been an utter, utter tool with a vigilante complex - if this had happened anywhere else in the Western world he'd just be a harmless idiot shooting his mouth off down the pub or canvassing for UKIP or whatever, or even if he had confronted Martin he wouldn't have had a weapon of any sort and probably nobody would have even been hurt. But because it's America he's allowed to turn himself into a killing machine.
i dunno obviously there's nothing in the legislation that's all like OH BY THE WAY ITS FINE TO SHOOT BLACK GUYS FOR NO REASON, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the law in Florida is (systematically) racist, and those with the power to change or scrutinise it are racist unless they try to do something about it.
but I guess my point is that it's a completely insane law whether or not it's open to racist 'abuse' (which it probably is and was, it's true)
but the result of this trial is definitely rooted in racism. Maybe not the kind where someone straight out insults another person to their face, but the insidious kind that white people like to wriggle out of facing because they believe that simply by not calling a black guy a racial epithet they are not racist.
US society and our society are deeply stacked against anyone who's not white, not male and not rich/upper-class. This is part of that system, that puts this man above the boy he shot.
Especially as I knew nothing about the case :(
Is this true? What kind of absolute nutcases are making these laws?
us law says 'thats alright then'
basically it speaks for itself
Fucked up laws.
The people saying that it was "murder" in this thread are misusing the term, though.