Zimmerman juror calls for change in self-defence laws

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Provoking is different from following, Provoking the person to engage in fight voids SYG laws and many other rights.

Is it or isnt it? Reading a few posts back I get the impression you're trying to connect provocation and Zimmermans following to justify Martins assault.

It seems that way.

reply to post by basednobleman


You hold on.

You're simply furthering the divide here. What good is it going to do you to assume that all white people feel the same way? I agree that this case has brought out a lot of white racists, but you're only showing that it's brought out black racists too.

I'm white and I know for a fact that white privilege exists, that institutional racism exists. I know that black men/boys are far more likely to be charged with petty and felonious crimes and sentenced more harshly than white men/boys. I know that culturally we are taught to fear darker skinned people. Perhaps you were also taught to make assumptions about white people? I'm certainly not the only white person that thinks the law, that allowed a man to pursue and provoke a teenage boy and then claim self defense because he got ass kicked and then fatally shot him, is disgusting.

So my question to you is, if you as black person and me as white person both know this reality, what good does it do you to lump me in with all 'crackers'. What good does it do me to dismiss you as just an angry black person? You and I see the same evil as do many others, the ability to see that evil isn't solely possessed by black people, though I may never understand it the way you might. Doesn't it make more sense to fight it together?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yes i am, following me with a weapon(thus have a mind set, i have the upper hand), and causing enough suspicion for the person being followed to attack you.

No one is going to randomly attack people unless they fear for their life.

But we will take the murderer's word for it, cause dead can't talk.

reply to post by Kali74


i for one am happy these debates came on ATS, it expose the racist for who they are... :/, must be hard for them to keep it inside all this time!

There is difference between looking at the case and looking at it with your mind already made up.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Yes i am, following me with a weapon(thus have a mind set, i have the upper hand), and causing enough suspicion for the person being followed to attack you.

You just said not two posts ago that following is not provocation. Right after you said it was provocation.

No one is going to randomly attack people unless they fear for their life.

Sure about that? To see so many posts in the vain or "of course Martin was going to attack" I'm beginning to think a lot of people would behave in such a way.

But we will take the murderer's word for it, cause dead can't talk.

Well, yeah. You have yet to outline a better way. Third or fourth time I've asked what your suggesting by the way.

I get the impression you're just sort of spinning your wheels to see the cool smoke because this isnt going anywhere.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

No one is going to randomly attack people unless they fear for their life.

Happens all of the time. I take it you've never walked in certain neighborhoods. People attack others quite often for being "disrespected."

reply to post by luciddream


This case and all the dialogue it has sparked has shown we really haven't come that far. People keep getting upset and asking why this case? Why not discuss the thousands of other cases blah blah blah... my question is why not this case? Why does it matter which case is focused on when the point is that we have a lot further to go. Making up fake social networking accounts and publishing fake 'thugged out' pictures of a dead boy to mask racism or to defend SYG laws shows how pathetic people are, it shows they know something is inherently wrong but since they don't want to be wrong they have to justify it somehow.

Trayvon Martin was a typical teenage kid with typical teenage trouble making. George Zimmerman whom it doesn't matter if he wasn't white, profiled that teenage boy and assumed he was up to no good. A hoodie doesn't define a persons behavioral mindset or the actions they are capable of, it's an article of clothing, neither does skin color. Zimmerman had NO reason to get out of his car, NO reason to even call the police, NO reason to even be suspicious.

Trayvon Martin is dead because George Zimmerman made assumptions and acted on them. Even if truly Zimmerman in the end was defending his life (which I don't believe), Zimmerman put himself in that situation by acting on his assumptions. My last two sentences are exactly WHY we need to be talking about this case and everything it invokes.

reply to post by Kali74

Trayvon Martin is dead because George Zimmerman made assumptions and acted on them.

No he is dead because GZ was tired of having his head used as a punching bag. That is what the physical evidence showed.
It just so happend that GZ story matched the evidence.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

lol they used SYG law to set him free.. yet this is more like follow, provoke and SYG. The judicial system is hilarious.

Not true. They did not use the SYG law and Zimmerman did not provoke Trayvon. If I was in Trayvons place I wouldn't have felt provoked to attack. You talk like it's a man v.s. a vicious animal, and I hope you guys realize how racist that is. Of course I wouldn't have acted like Trayvon either (wandering around peoples yards in the rain gor half an hour or so, amd then running from a guy in a car). If for some reason I was in a similar situation and felt in danger I would have gone in the house when I made it there instead of waiting and attacking. That is what caused the incident. That was THE action and THE decision. That led to his death.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Ok, so that answers the first question. I thought she was.

So, why does she believe, I wonder, that self defense is a bad thing? If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

That's the thing that bugs me. It's blaming the actual victim (George Zimmerman) for the crime, because he didn't die, or end up in the hospital.

That's quite true. This issue of this case should not be about self defense laws (even though the usual suspects in Washington are trying to make it a case to harm self defense) the issue of the case was that there was not enough evidence to convict GZ beyond a reasonable doubt. Either he defended himself from an attack or he didn't and the jury thought it was the latter.

I think you mean they thought the former, that he did defend himself? In any case, yes, self defense is under attack. So is a right to a fair trial, considering how biased most potential jurors were before the trial started.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

What if the Juror is "non-white"? does that mean they are biased? this can be said about the other 4 as well.

No; just wanted to be sure, so no one claimed that was the case. I suspect this woman is simply smart enough to understand the law, but still influenced enough to believe that a wrong was done, by all the child pictures and media manipulation.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

yes it would make seen if some random teen, unprovoked came and attacked me. But if i was following a Teen, under the suspicion that he is "up to no good"... then cause the person to get panicked and attack the follower, then the follower killed them, that would be something else.

Maybe someone with your mindset like letting some men follow you around.

I for one would fight back. That is myself defense.

Someone following, which Zimmerman wasn't at the time, still isn't an excuse to attack. It's illegal, and wrong. Plus, Martin clearly didn't panic, because he could have been inside, and chose not to be. he instead returned to the location where he attacked, Zimmerman.

Originally posted by luciddream
No one is going to randomly attack people unless they fear for their life.

Oh, really? No one ever commits an assault unless they are threatened? Really?!?!?!?!? What planet is that on?

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

No one is going to randomly attack people unless they fear for their life.

But we will take the murderer's word for it, cause dead can't talk.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Ok, so that answers the first question. I thought she was.

So, why does she believe, I wonder, that self defense is a bad thing? If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

That's the thing that bugs me. It's blaming the actual victim (George Zimmerman) for the crime, because he didn't die, or end up in the hospital.

That's quite true. This issue of this case should not be about self defense laws (even though the usual suspects in Washington are trying to make it a case to harm self defense) the issue of the case was that there was not enough evidence to convict GZ beyond a reasonable doubt. Either he defended himself from an attack or he didn't and the jury thought it was the latter.

I think you mean they thought the former, that he did defend himself? In any case, yes, self defense is under attack. So is a right to a fair trial, considering how biased most potential jurors were before the trial started.

LOL> Yes, yes, I meant "former." Well caught.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
But it wasn't a SYG law, it was a self-defense law.

I know that. But here are the juror's words:

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.

Source

edit on 7/19/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Instead of reaching for a high sentence, they should have tried for involuntary manslaughter.
According to various reports, the special DA Angela Corey likes harsh punishments.
I feel the same with the Casey Anthony case. If they had a lesser charge on the table, the outcome might have been different.

reply to post by snarky412


So what if TM had been your son? What would any of you tell your 17yr son to do in that case? That he can outrun a bullit in the back?

Originally posted by MOMof3
reply to post by snarky412

 

So what if TM had been your son? What would any of you tell your 17yr son to do in that case? That he can outrun a bullit in the back?

Um, pardon me, but what has that got to do with my comment regarding 'involuntary' manslaughter vs. manslaughter??

B37 ... i'm glad i won't hear that called at BINGO

what a confused person.
i am glad others were successful at clarifying the law for her.

unfortunately, there seems to be only two views of this issue ... those who believe self-defense is an absolute right in every situation and those who believe first encounters between strangers should include a physical assault.

let's hope she comes to her senses before any attempt to re-write a law that she clearly didn't/doesn't understand.

I find it extremely unnerving that even though this juror was instructed on the law, she still does not understand that stand your ground did not apply to his situation because he could not retreat at all. Even if Florida HAD NO STAND YOUR GROUND CLAUSE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THIS CASE.