RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:25:01 AM)
Trayvon committed no illegal activity until he attacked Zimmerman [if what Zimmerman is saying is true]. The argument that using potentially lethal force against someone because you think they might be following you could be made...but I think it is considerably weaker than that needed to justify it against someone beating you up. It seems in your final line that you're implying that because Trayvon is black I deny him the right to self defence. That's offensive [though I appreciate this is unmoderated] and not remotely the case [if that's not our intention I apologise] I just think that the argument for it is so much weaker in Trayvon's case and dances a very fine line between legitimate argument and victim blaming.

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:26:35 AM)
''It wasn't directed towards you'' I'm sorry in that case Tammy my mistake.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:46:54 AM)
quote: Trayvon committed no illegal activity until he attacked Zimmerman [if what Zimmerman is saying is true]. The argument that using potentially lethal force against someone because you think they might be following you could be made...but I think it is considerably weaker than that needed to justify it against someone beating you up. It seems in your final line that you're implying that because Trayvon is black I deny him the right to self defence. That's offensive [though I appreciate this is unmoderated] and not remotely the case [if that's not our intention I apologise] I just think that the argument for it is so much weaker in Trayvon's case and dances a very fine line between legitimate argument and victim blaming. When did I claim this was about race for you? Projecting much? Me pointing out the little bit of understanding I do have from my own history of racial problems and arguing some of the side of those who are screaming for Z's blood right now has nothing to do with me siding one way or the other. My being aware that people are treated differently based upon skin color isnt calling anyone specifically a racist. And I really resent you attempting to imply it was. Again, back to the rape issue... if T had been a female, of any race, would we still be having this discussion? No. Women are taught its acceptable to fight back when afraid. 5. Your right to fight. Unfortunately, no matter how diligently we practice awareness and avoidance techniques, we may find ourselves in a physical confrontation. Whether or not you have self-defence training, and no matter what your age or physical condition, it is important to understand that you CAN and SHOULD defend yourself physically. You have both the moral and legal right to do so, even if the attacker is only threatening you and hasn’t struck first. Many women worry that they will anger the attacker and get hurt worse if they defend themselves, but statistics clearly show that your odds of survival are far greater if you do fight back. Aim for the eyes first and the groin second. Remember, though, to use the element of surprise to your advantage–strike quickly, and mean business. You may only get one chance. http://powertochange.com/life/personalsafetytips/ Are we now to teach women not to fight back because they will be killed under SYG laws?

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 4:57:39 AM)
''When did I claim this was about race for you? Projecting much?'' No not projecting. It seemed you implied it when you asked if I believed the right to self defence applied to some but not to others. It seemed reasonable to take your meaning to be the difference in race between the two parties. Perhaps you meant the age I don't know. i made sure to explicitly apologise if you didn't mean race. What were you refering to out of interest? ''My being aware that people are treated differently based upon skin color isnt calling anyone specifically a racist. And I really resent you attempting to imply it was.'' As I resented the implication that I would afford rights to some but not to others Tazzy. I would very much be having an issue if a woman had attacked or even killed a man based on the fact that she thought he was following her and therfore was afraid. I might be willing to accept that... but certainly not without a discussion and serious evidence as to where that fear was engendered. '' *You have both the moral and legal right to do so, even if the attacker is only threatening you and hasn’t struck first''* Threat is both legally and personally defined. You could argue that someone following you was threat enough but you certtainly couldn't do so without seriosu debate. The idea that on thne off chance someone might be following you you can assault them is fraught with legal and moral pitfalls. If your basis for going for someone's eyes is he got out of his car and asked what you were doing you would have some very serious questions to answer...and rightly so.

Raiikun -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If I have it correctly, SYG in plain English equates to something similar to: "Even if you have a way to retreat, we are no longer going to hold you responsible to do so". I think that's the crux of it. I will say this: As long as we seperate castle doctrine (NO ONE is going to require me to retreat in my own home) from SYG, I wouldn't mind if SYG was wiped out (sort of). I think the "path of retreat" has to be clear and VERY easily accessible. No question about it (which would be an element for trial). You've pretty much got it down. As Massad Ayoob points out, in no place in this country is retreat expected, even without SYG laws, unless you are sure you can do it in safety...without having to turn your back on a knife or pistol, without having to back up faster than the guy can walk forward, without risking the safety to those under your mantle of protection. Because of that, the SYG laws really aren't a sea change. For anyone critiquing the SYG laws, this really is a much watch; it cuts through the BS and misconceptions about what it really is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:05:55 AM)
I thought Zimmerman defended himself based on self defence laws as opposed to Stand your Ground?

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:10:21 AM)
quote: As I resented the implication that I would afford rights to some but not to others Tazzy. Many would afford those rights to some but not others. A rapist would afford those to some, but not the person they were intending to rape. Color has no play in that belief. quote: I would very much be having an issue if a woman had attacked or even killed a man based on the fact that she thought he was following her and therfore was afraid. I might be willing to accept that... but certainly not without a discussion and serious evidence as to where that fear was engendered. And yet that is what they are taught, and that its morally and legally within their right to do so. Yet, suddenly, you have an issue with it... why? A woman and a man in a dark park.. remember? Should she wait till she is attacked first? We dont teach our daughters that.

Raiikun -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:17:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 I thought Zimmerman defended himself based on self defence laws as opposed to Stand your Ground? In Florida, they're the same laws. It's true though that O'Mara made it clear that he was arguing that George had no opportunity to stand his ground or retreat as it was impossible to do so while on his back. The immunity part of SYG might come into play later though if the Martin family tries to sue George, as then O'Mara can use it to seek immunity from civil prosecution. And since the law says that anyone justified in using force will get compensated for the defense, any lawsuit brought against George could end up with the plaintiffs paying George, so that risk might keep the lawsuits from coming at all.

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:18:29 AM)
I don't suddenly have an issue with it. Attacking someone because you fear an assault can be prudent. It is not however carte blanche to attack anyone with no questions asked. Is that honestly how you interpret that message. That women can attack someone because of fear and be subject to no scrutiny? If that isn't how you see it then why do you suddenly have an issue wth the same questions being asked here? If all that is needed is for a woman and a man to be in a dark place to justify attacking him then I am not surprised that we see this issue so diffently. If I got out of my car at night and walked to my house and someone assuemed I was following them and clawed out my eyes then i'd want some bloody impressive answers for why that fear was legitimate and the response appropriate. As to the initial part of your post, ''Many would afford those rights to some but not others. A rapist would afford those to some, but not the person they were intending to rape. Color has no play in that belief.'' You asked the question of me. I asked on what basis as it seemed you were implying i'd deny Martin his rights based on his race. This scarcely sems a better explanation for the question and implication.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:30:15 AM)
quote: I don't suddenly have an issue with it. Attacking someone because you fear an assault can be prudent. It is not however carte blanche to attack anyone with no questions asked. Is that honestly how you interpret that message. That women can attack someone because of fear and be subject to no scrutiny? If that isn't how you see it then why do you suddenly have an issue wth the same questions being asked here? Most arguments tend to go back to the "rape" issue. Its almost become the second Godwin's law. quote: If all that is needed is for a woman and a man to be in a dark place to justify attacking him then I am not surprised that we see this issue so diffently. If I got out of my car at night and walked to my house and someone assuemed I was following them and clawed out my eyes then i'd want some bloody impressive answers for why that fear was legitimate and the response appropriate. If you got out of your car and went into your house, she would have no reason to fear. Self defense classes teach women to listen to their gut reactions. quote: As to the initial part of your post, ''Many would afford those rights to some but not others. A rapist would afford those to some, but not the person they were intending to rape. Color has no play in that belief.'' You asked the question of me. I asked on what basis as it seemed you were implying i'd deny Martin his rights based on his race. This scarcely sems a better explanation for the question and implication. You didnt ask, you accused. Had you asked, my answer would have been different. Self defense is now illegal? Or is it only legal for some people and not all people? Now, if this issue isnt about race, why did you inject race into my post? I never mentioned race there.

Raiikun -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:31:51 AM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls#at=604

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:40:26 AM)
I gave two analogies you chose to run with the one of rape. The other was if Zimmerman had rolls of cash strapped to his clothes and strolled through the Bronx would he be to blame if he was mugged? Again listening to your gut reactions doesn't give you carte blanche to behave how you please. The idea that you can use your intuition and then not face questioning and scruting is clearly risible. I asked and made sure to explicitly apologise if it was not the case. You still haven't made it clear what you meant. It was a deeply ambiguous comment my response doesn't seem unreasonable. I didn't inject it into your post. You asked whether I believed self defence was a right to some and not to others. Given the nature of the case it seemed entirely plausible the difference referred to race. It was ambiguous enough though that it maiight not of so in the same breath,as i've mentioned numerous times, I mades sure to apologise if that was not your intention. I've then asked multiple times what you in fact meant to ask but you havent answered except with a snippet about the views of rapists towards their victims...and equally repugnant idea if that is what you meant when asking me.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 5:57:43 AM)
quote: I asked and made sure to explicitly apologise if it was not the case. You still haven't made it clear what you meant. It was a deeply ambiguous comment my response doesn't seem unreasonable. quote: It seems in your final line that you're implying that because Trayvon is black I deny him the right to self defence. That's offensive [though I appreciate this is unmoderated] and not remotely the case [if that's not our intention I apologise] I just think that the argument for it is so much weaker in Trayvon's case and dances a very fine line between legitimate argument and victim blaming. You asked.... there was a question there? No. Just an assumption which you gave a backhanded attempt at covering your ass with that lame apology IF you were wrong. Well, buddy, you were wrong. Not only in assuming my intention was racially motivated, but in thinking you covered your ass well enough. You failed on both counts. quote: I didn't inject it into your post. You asked whether I believed self defence was a right to some and not to others. Given the nature of the case it seemed entirely plausible the difference referred to race. And here we come to the crux of the problem... beyond your own bias which you have shown glaringly. YOU are allowed to view the "nature of the case". The Jury was instructed to disregard that same "nature". They were even told it could not come up in conversations. You can offer whatever "plausible" excuse now you want to dream up. It points the fact that you havent read this thread and came in on the tail end, assuming facts that have been talked about earlier in regards to how certain posters feel about the race issue of this case... and now you want to "apologize" for that ignorance after attempting to take someone to task who has repeatedly agreed this case was not about racism. quote: I've then asked multiple times what you in fact meant to ask but you havent answered except with a snippet about the views of rapists towards their victims...and equally repugnant idea if that is what you meant when asking me. And I answered... Many would afford those rights to some but not others. A rapist would afford those to some, but not the person they were intending to rape. Color has no play in that belief. What makes one fear more worthy of defense than another?

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:08:46 AM)
How is it a backhanded attempt? I said ''it seems'' as your post is deeply ambiguous and to me appeared to imply that I would deny Trayvon his rights based on his race. As it wasn't certain you were doing thius due to the aforementioned ambiguity I apologised if it wasn't in fact the case. With grim predictability given the level of debate on Collarme you took this as a direct assault. Why? How i it covering my arse? You failed to make your post clear. I said it seemed to imply somthing but apologised if it did not. What bias? Once more you made an ambiguous post [one you still haven't explained]. No I haven't read this enture thread. If that's the standard to decipher your meaning then i think it foolish in the extreme. What plausible excuse have I offerered? What have I even offered an excuse for? And the defence against a rapist I apply the same rules to as I do this case. Multiple times now. i would ask the same questions regardsless and have explained why...you however wouldn't. One wonders why?

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:09:41 AM)
quote: You failed to make your post clear. It should have been quite clear to anyone who read the whole thread that I have stated, more than a few times, that i didnt think this case was about racism. That I didnt believe Zimmerman went out looking for a black person and attacked simply because he was black. Your failure to read the context of which you are coming into a discussion is by no means my fault or worry. And I answered... Many would afford those rights to some but not others. A rapist would afford those to some, but not the person they were intending to rape. Color has no play in that belief. What makes one fear more worthy of defense than another?

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:13:13 AM)
''What makes one fear more worthy of defense than another? '' And i've answered multiple times, including the post above that it doesn't. It does to you an important distinction. Fear of rape is as much a defence as fear of violence...it's also held to the saem scruting and questions if it's invoked.

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:15:30 AM)
you've edited your last post while I was replying so i didn't answer fully. I haven't read the whole thread I read your initial response to me. I wan't aware that to decipher it I was required to read all 100 odd pages. That's why I asked and made sure to apologise if I was wrong. Your failure to observe basic comprehension and employ clarity of writing is also not my fault or worry...buddy.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:20:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 ''What makes one fear more worthy of defense than another? '' And i've answered multiple times, including the post above that it doesn't. It does to you an important distinction. Fear of rape is as much a defence as fear of violence...it's also held to the saem scruting and questions if it's invoked. Gotta be alive to invoke it. And apparently you would be wrong. Fear does make a difference, else the certain fear a 17 year old felt that night... like the fear a female would feel in the same situation... would have been taken into account... and it wasnt.

Wendel27 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:25:18 AM)
How does that logic impinge on mine? That both fears have to be scrutinised and simply by their existence do not comprise and acceptable framework for use of force? I don't know if Martin's fear was taken into account I didn't watch the trial. It wouldn't matter though as to whether or not Zimmerman acted illegaly in killing him...particuarly for a murder charge. To go back to the rape idea if I exited my vehicle and was walking home and a woman in front assaulted me because she feared I was a rapist I would be well within my rights to use as much force as reasonable and neccesary to stop her. I don't know if what Zimmerman said is the truth. If it is though the idea that he is culpable is, in my opinion, flawed and wavering along the line of victim blaming.

tazzygirl -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/20/2013 6:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 you've edited your last post while I was replying so i didn't answer fully. I haven't read the whole thread I read your initial response to me. I wan't aware that to decipher it I was required to read all 100 odd pages. That's why I asked and made sure to apologise if I was wrong. Your failure to observe basic comprehension and employ clarity of writing is also not my fault or worry...buddy. Your ignorance on my position is not my fault. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4499130 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4495401 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4495419 Your lack of homework isnt my problem. You made assumptions that had already been posted about. Instead of assuming... then trying to weasel your way out by offering a lame attempted joke of an apology... try asking instead. I would have gladly handed you all those other posts. But its not MY responsibility to educate you now on something that has already been posted upon. if you lacked understanding and clarity, its not my fault because the clarity was made quite plainly and clearly in those posts above.

Page: << < prev 103 104 [105] 106 107 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125