Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Timsup2nothin]

So your saying that if Trayvon had successfully beaten Zimmerman to death he could have claimed 'self defence'?

How would that have gone?
Officer - 'What happened here?
Trayvon - 'Some guy followed me and I beat him to death'
Officer - 'Sounds like self defense to me. Had a case last week where a half dozen stalkers were killed following a guy up an escalator '

Your lack of understanding about the law explains how you came to personally experience aspects of the legal system that most of us are ignorant of.

Try Florida on for size. Martin EXCEEDED the requirements of the law in at least two ways.

A creepy guy was following me in his car. I DID NOT confront him. Even though I am not required to do so by law I left the street in an effort to evade the confrontation.

The creepy guy left his car and followed me. I DID NOT confront him. Even though I am not required to do so by law I attempted to hide in an effort to evade the confrontation.

Thinking that he had passed and that it was safe I emerged from my hiding place, but I was wrong and he appeared suddenly, too close for me to get away from him. Fearing for my life I defended myself. I realized that he was carrying a gun and still fearing for my life I had to resort to deadly force.

Heck, that would qualify as self defense even OUTSIDE of Florida. Two legitimate efforts to avoid or deescalate? I don't think there is ANY state law that would demand more from a victim.

But the fact is that Florida law, with their misguided and horribly worded application of 'stand your ground' does not require ANY effort at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Gee, why could he convincingly say he feared for his life?

Because you, me, the cops, the DA, and twelve members of a jury have no legal grounds to contest his testimony as to his own state of mind. And if Martin had successfully bashed his head in none of us would have any legal grounds to contest his testimony if he claimed the exact same thing. That's what is glaringly wrong with Florida's law. It hinges the legitimacy of a self defense claim on a testimony that cannot be legally disputed or disproved.

It has no requirements for ACTION. You are not required to prove that you made any effort of any kind to deescalate the situation. You are not required to have made any attempt to do anything. As long as you "feared for your life" it is defined as reasonable that you took recourse to use of deadly force.

You don't even have to show that there was any real risk to your life. "I thought he had a gun and fearing for my life..." is, under Florida law exactly equivalent to "He had a gun and fearing for my life..." Heck, I joke about the number of idiots I'd be likely to have killed if I lived in Florida, but the truth is I'd most likely be shot within a month. "There was this big guy and fearing for my life..." F'ing scared little paranoids can literally go on legally authorized killing sprees.

Zimmerman's defenders applauded the "wisdom" of this law when Zimmerman went free. They would likely have viewed the law much differently had the white guy's brains been left on the sidewalk, because Martin would have been equally 'not guilty.' No Florida jury under their law could find any other way. If they did they would be automatically overturned for ignoring the law as written.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In a different thread you (Tim) mentioned something that made me start pondering a CNN segment I heard this morning ... kid has his bike stolen and a local police officer generously buys him a replacement. One of the CNN anchors is gushing over this officer/story (paraphrasing) "Awww, this is just another example highlighting the kindness and generosity of cops and how they protect and serve the community."...

So when one guy who also happens to be a cop, does one act of kindness/generosity that has nothing to do with his profession, all cops get credit for it, but then when one cop shoots some guy in the back for running from a broken taillight traffic-stop, we hear "You can't blame all cops for what one guy did"... but we also hear, when one black guy commits a burglary in the neighborhood, that this justifies being suspicious of all black people. The sentiment that folks were arguing as being understandable/justified was "Of course its understandable that he would be following blacks he sees in the neighborhood, there was a burglary reported with a black suspect."

So all black people get blamed for the bad actions of one black person, the cops can't be blamed for the bad actions of one cop, but then all cops can be praised for the good actions of one cop.

 

[Lexicus]

Gee, why could he convincingly say he feared for his life?

Because there was a scary black kid who took some selfies where he was making mean faces!
Seriously, Zimmerman is such a worthless excuse for a human being, but the people who defend him on the internet might be even worse. Another category of people I'd rather deport than undocumented immigrants.

So all black people get blamed for the bad actions of one black person, the cops can't be blamed for the bad actions of one cop, but then all cops can be praised for the good actions of one cop.

Bootlickers gonna lick boots

 

[EgonSpengler]

So all black people get blamed for the bad actions of one black person, the cops can't be blamed for the bad actions of one cop, but then all cops can be praised for the good actions of one cop.

I don't know where things stand now, but in September the Massachusetts SJC ruled that fleeing from police cannot by itself constitute reasonable suspicion because of consistent behavior by police, specifically toward Black men in the city of Boston. The link to the SJC website is broken, but the case was Commonwealth v. Jimmy Warren if anyone wants to look it up. I've no idea whether the ruling had any effect on BPD policy or behavior. I know the commissioner didn't like it at the time.

We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity.

 

[metatron]

#2: Liberal Americans are obsessed with how the head of the EPA used to sue the EPA.
But 3 years ago the story of him torturing a black man to death lasted all of 3 days.

The count is at 272.
The newest entry with a photo is #268, Alteria Woods, 21, pregnant, deceased march 19th 2017, suspected of absolutely nothing:

Spoiler :

You want to spend a month debating with O'Reilly and Funky whether her boyfriend used her as a shield or not?
I'm sure, they'll gladly indulge you if you ask real nice.

I may as well take inventory here:
- O'Reilly's out and Funky's nowhere to be seen.
- Arkansas is going full on Saudi Arabia on people.
- The count is at 363.
- The pros here spent 20 pages relitigating Martin v Zimmerman.

*slowclap*

 

[Berzerker]

Because you, me, the cops, the DA, and twelve members of a jury have no legal grounds to contest his testimony as to his own state of mind. And if Martin had successfully bashed his head in none of us would have any legal grounds to contest his testimony if he claimed the exact same thing. That's what is glaringly wrong with Florida's law. It hinges the legitimacy of a self defense claim on a testimony that cannot be legally disputed or disproved.

It has no requirements for ACTION. You are not required to prove that you made any effort of any kind to deescalate the situation. You are not required to have made any attempt to do anything. As long as you "feared for your life" it is defined as reasonable that you took recourse to use of deadly force.

You don't even have to show that there was any real risk to your life. "I thought he had a gun and fearing for my life..." is, under Florida law exactly equivalent to "He had a gun and fearing for my life..." Heck, I joke about the number of idiots I'd be likely to have killed if I lived in Florida, but the truth is I'd most likely be shot within a month. "There was this big guy and fearing for my life..." F'ing scared little paranoids can literally go on legally authorized killing sprees.

Zimmerman's defenders applauded the "wisdom" of this law when Zimmerman went free. They would likely have viewed the law much differently had the white guy's brains been left on the sidewalk, because Martin would have been equally 'not guilty.' No Florida jury under their law could find any other way. If they did they would be automatically overturned for ignoring the law as written.

Didn't a Florida man get convicted for shooting into a car and killing someone at a gas station over loud music? He claimed he saw a gun and feared for his life before shooting. Didn't work... People look at whatever evidence is available, the evidence in the Zimmerman case supported his claim of self defense. The cops told Zimmerman somebody recorded the incident, he was openly grateful there was evidence showing his innocence.

He didn't use or need 'stand your ground' and he would have gone free in any jurisdiction that recognizes self defense as legitimate force. He was on his back with his head bouncing off the concrete before the gun entered the picture. You blame him for getting into that situation. That doesn't make him a criminal, just another victim getting blamed because they shouldn't have been in the way of a criminal.

The sentiment that folks were arguing as being understandable/justified was "Of course its understandable that he would be following blacks he sees in the neighborhood, there was a burglary reported with a black suspect."

So all black people get blamed for the bad actions of one black person, the cops can't be blamed for the bad actions of one cop, but then all cops can be praised for the good actions of one cop.

He wasn't following black people, he followed a young black male who was acting suspiciously because the neighborhood had recently seen burglaries by young black males. Martin doesn't represent black people, making him serve in that role doesn't do black people any favors.

Because there was a scary black kid who took some selfies where he was making mean faces!

What do selfies have to do with this? Zimmerman wasn't attacked by a selfie.

Seriously, Zimmerman is such a worthless excuse for a human being, but the people who defend him on the internet might be even worse. Another category of people I'd rather deport than undocumented immigrants.

Not a fan of free speech? Why stop with the internet, I'm sure there's millions of people who think Zimmerman was justified, including jurors. He was out there trying to protect his neighborhood, what is your worth?

Bootlickers gonna lick boots

Before you started licking Martin's boots you should have examined the facts, you got stuck defending a violent criminal and demonizing a Peruvian Jew. Will this count toward your track record of anti-semitism?

 

[Lexicus]

Not a fan of free speech? Why stop with the internet, I'm sure there's millions of people who think Zimmerman was justified, including jurors. He was out there trying to protect his neighborhood, what is your worth?

Yes, the country would be better off without them

 

[Berzerker]

You might have to grab a gun and do some deporting yourself cuz I doubt you'll find many of the people protecting you from criminals volunteering, they'll be among those you want to deport.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Zimmerman is about as much a Puruvian Jew as Carlos Mencia is a Mexican.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Didn't a Florida man get convicted for shooting into a car and killing someone at a gas station over loud music? He claimed he saw a gun and feared for his life before shooting. Didn't work... People look at whatever evidence is available, the evidence in the Zimmerman case supported his claim of self defense. The cops told Zimmerman somebody recorded the incident, he was openly grateful there was evidence showing his innocence.

He didn't use or need 'stand your ground' and he would have gone free in any jurisdiction that recognizes self defense as legitimate force. He was on his back with his head bouncing off the concrete before the gun entered the picture. You blame him for getting into that situation. That doesn't make him a criminal, just another victim getting blamed because they shouldn't have been in the way of a criminal.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...particularly when it has already been explained to you. In any sensible jurisdiction the instant he claimed self defense he would have been asked "Before the altercation turned physical was Martin heading away from you? Okay, so when he made that effort to avoid, defuse, deescalate the situation, what did you do?" and that would have put paid to his self defense claim.

Under Florida law those questions aren't asked, because there is no responsibility to make any attempt to deescalate a situation.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's like south park when Ned and Jimbo go hunting they always yell "It's comin' right for us!" before shooting.

 

[Berzerker]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...particularly when it has already been explained to you. In any sensible jurisdiction the instant he claimed self defense he would have been asked "Before the altercation turned physical was Martin heading away from you? Okay, so when he made that effort to avoid, defuse, deescalate the situation, what did you do?" and that would have put paid to his self defense claim.

Under Florida law those questions aren't asked, because there is no responsibility to make any attempt to deescalate a situation.

Martin didn't try to avoid Zimmerman, he came out of hiding to attack him

Zimmerman is about as much a Puruvian Jew as Carlos Mencia is a Mexican.

That may be right, his father's german ancestry is a bit murkier than his mother. Zimmerman might have more black blood thru her than jewish blood thru his dad

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Martin didn't try to avoid Zimmerman, he came out of hiding to attack him

Which of these sounds like a more valid claim pointing to an effort to avoid a confrontation:

a) I hid from him.
b) I went looking for him.

Try to give an honest answer. Then acknowledge that you just made one of the dumbest posts ever.

 

[Hygro]

Berserker do you go around your neighborhood the way Zimmerman did?

 

[Berzerker]

Which of these sounds like a more valid claim pointing to an effort to avoid a confrontation:

a) I hid from him.
b) I went looking for him.

Try to give an honest answer. Then acknowledge that you just made one of the dumbest posts ever.

Straw men are designed to be dumb

a) I came out of hiding to ambush him
b) I looked to see which way he ran

Berserker do you go around your neighborhood the way Zimmerman did?

He was neighborhood watch, I'm not... Its very rural here, but if the neighborhood was hit with several burglaries I'd obviously be on the look out for suspicious people. Might even get a gun.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Straw men are designed to be dumb

I am confident that you can exceed your programming.

Martin LEFT the scene. Martin HID from his pursuer. Both of those qualify as actions taken to avoid or deescalate the situation. You have acknowledged openly that he did do these things. If Martin had killed Zimmerman his self defense claim would be rock solid in any jurisdiction in America.

You have yet to indicate a single thing that Zimmerman did, from the moment he set eyes on Martin, that would qualify as an attempt to avoid or deescalate the confrontation.

He followed him...which you have attempted to parley into "but he lost him, so that should count somehow" which is ridiculous beyond words.
When he lost sight of him he went looking for him, which is again absolutely the opposite of an attempt to deescalate or avoid.

I hate repeatedly saying your posts are stupid, but you keep making the same stupid posts.

No matter how many times you say "he came out of hiding" it does not change the fact that he hid in the first place and that Zimmerman went looking for him. Who made a legitimate effort to avoid the confrontation is so glaringly obvious that you have to be just trying to be so obtuse.

 

[Berzerker]

I am confident that you can exceed your programming.

Martin LEFT the scene. Martin HID from his pursuer. Both of those qualify as actions taken to avoid or deescalate the situation.

Not if he was going to ambush him...and he did.

You have yet to indicate a single thing that Zimmerman did, from the moment he set eyes on Martin, that would qualify as an attempt to avoid or deescalate the confrontation.

Zimmerman quickly lost sight of Martin and proceeded to talk with the dispatcher about meeting the cops. He didn't run in the direction he thought Martin took, he headed back to his truck instead. Martin intercepted him. The confrontation was initiated by Martin and so was the violence. Before getting attacked Zimmerman tried to talk with Martin about what he was doing in the neighborhood.

He followed him...which you have attempted to parley into "but he lost him, so that should count somehow" which is ridiculous beyond words.

I've explained this several times now, Zimmerman was accused of ignoring the dispatcher's instructions. Didn't you accuse him of that? So it matters that he lost Martin upon leaving his truck. It matters that he lost Martin before the dispatcher told him not to follow. And yes, when Martin came out of hiding to attack him, Zimmerman was going back to his truck - he was not following or looking for anyone by then. He thought Martin was long gone.

When he lost sight of him he went looking for him, which is again absolutely the opposite of an attempt to deescalate or avoid.

He looked to see which way he ran so he could direct the cops, he wasn't trying to keep up with or catch Martin.

I hate repeatedly saying your posts are stupid, but you keep making the same stupid posts.

No matter how many times you say "he came out of hiding" it does not change the fact that he hid in the first place and that Zimmerman went looking for him. Who made a legitimate effort to avoid the confrontation is so glaringly obvious that you have to be just trying to be so obtuse.

Martin made a legitimate effort to avoid violence by ambushing his victim?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

<---snipped repetition number thirty of same stupid stuff--->

The idea that "well he lost him" can be presented as "see, he was trying to avoid the confrontation" by someone of your intellect is frankly amazing. Just the ability to type words would seem to indicate that you are too smart to think anyone is going to agree with that.

 

[Berzerker]

The idea that "well he lost him" can be presented as "see, he was trying to avoid the confrontation" by someone of your intellect is frankly amazing. Just the ability to type words would seem to indicate that you are too smart to think anyone is going to agree with that.

I never said Zimmerman losing Martin was proof he was trying to avoid a confrontation, I said it was proof Zimmerman didn't disobey the dispatcher's instructions.