I’m sure I’m not the first to claim as much in this conversation, but it’s the SYG laws that are an abomination:
io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise-in-justified-killings-of-773490798
The title of the article is a pretty interesting oversimplification of what the article actually says. Assuming SYG leads to an increase in successful justifiable homicide claims, then
we would naturally expect that more black people would be justifiably homicide’d as a result, since they are overrepresented in homicide rates. If a policy leads to an increase in X, and a group of people are overrepresented in X, then we would expect the policy would disproportionately impact X. Replace X with whatever social ill (or good) that you like.
The supporting claim on offer is that whites who shoot blacks claim justifiable homicide more successfully than any other combination. But what does this prove? Maybe it proves discrimination (which I guess is what the point is supposed to be), but it would only prove discrimination if the nature of black-on-white crime is exactly the same as the nature of white-on-white crime or the nature of black-on-black crime. But it isn’t exactly the same, and there’s no reason to believe it would be. Black people and white people typically commit crime in very, very different social contexts. Since they’re different, we would expect differences to emerge in the way they’re handled. I made the case for that in the previous thread. Police officers, prosecuting attorneys, etc., don’t make decisions in aggregate but on a case-by-case basis, and surprise, summary statistics don’t allow for case-specific details like that. That’s why they’re called “summary” statistics.
You can demonstrate that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman?
You get that you can die from having your head slammed repeatedly into the pavement, right? Martin’s intent is irrelevant, what matters is Zimmerman’s evaluation of his intent. I think it’s reasonable, when someone is slamming your head into the pavement repeatedly, to conclude that your life is in danger.
Regardless of what he had done in the past or who Zimmerman perceived him to be, Martin did not commit any crime that night. U.S. citizens including teenage black males have the constitutional right to move about freely without molestation!
You have it completely backwards. Following someone you suspect of criminal intent is not legally wrong. Attacking someone for following you, on the other hand, is.
But since he is not law enforcement he has no right to confront anyone. If someone was trailing me I would perceive them to be a threat.
The unanimous consensus appears to be that Martin confronted Zimmerman, not vice-versa.
Loitering is not a death penalty offense.
And shooting someone in self-defense is not the carrying-out of a judicial sentence.
If Zimmerman had been black none of us would have ever heard of Trayvon Martin.
And the reverse is also true: had Martin been white and Zimmerman black, we’d never have heard of it, either. The PC Gestapo has no use for such stories.
Ummm…it was being applied to Prosecution (Goliath) vs the Defense (David), not TM & GZ
Bingo. Zimmerman didn’t stand a chance with the media, Hollywood, the NAACP, big shot prosecuting attorneys, a Dem judge who ruled consistently in the prosecution’s favor, etc., all arrayed against him. Yet still, he won.
Because
there was no case, the protestations of a billion anonymous Internet armchair jurists over the Internet notwithstanding.
At this point I’m not talking about the law anymore. I am saying that the unnecessary loss of life could have bee avoided had Z let police do their jobs. As Catholics we should never desire the loss of life!
You mean like discontinue pursuit, like he appears to have done?
Yep. If he had got his butt in the house like a good black boy none of this would have happened. Never mind he was a U.S. citizen with rights to be out wherever he wanted at 7 pm.
Again, following someone you suspect of wrongdoing isn’t a crime, hence no “rights” were violated.
Why else would Z have stalked him? You are blind if you don’t see that in America of course race played a role. Save your righteous indignation for your next meeting.
Following someone you suspect of wrongdoing is not “stalking.”
Define “acting suspicious”
Walking through a gated community recently afflicted by a string of burglaries, looking around at various houses, while wearing dark clothes that also cover the head, at night, doesn’t count as suspicious? That evaluation may or may not have been wrong but it’s easy to see how a person could make it in good faith.
You are right and I am sorry if i attacked you personally. But please tell me what give Z the right to stalk an confront anyone? He is not law enforcement.
Again, he doesn’t appear to have confronted Martin, and following is not the same thing as “stalking.”
Ok I guess. As I said earlier death could have been avoided if Z had just waited for police. That’s my point. BTW I am a traditionalist Catholic who owns three firearms. I just don feel that it is my role to do the police job for them.
Following someone is not the same thing as “doing the police’s job.” You don’t seem to have a very clear grasp of what happened that night.
