Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

Well, from what I recall, there was this study which compared homicide rates between the UK and the US in terms of prison sentences. IIRC, the UK average sentence was 12 years for murder while the US was much higher (definitely greater than 12, probably around 18 or 20?), yet the either the homicide rates didn't differ greatly, or the UK was slightly better.

I don't remember how the study controlled for relevant variables, but if what I recall is true, then it seems that greater prison sentences don't really reduce crime--past 12 years or so.

But what about less serious crimes with their lesser prison times? I'm not sure, but it's very likely that more pertinent studies have been done regarding hate crime laws and effectiveness. I'd expect similar outcomes.

I think its possible that homicide is different than assault and battery though. When you commit homicide, I have to assume you are assuming your gone forever, and the idea of 6 years changing that couldnt possibly factor in. Also, its an average, and I doubt many people even know the average time served for homicide.

However, when you get into lesser crimes, you instinctively know you might serve a little time if nailed for assault and battery, but I suspect, many, not all, could very well be deterred from hate crime, at least in some cases, because it does have the publicized effect of making you know its more time. Again, I have to assume some group going out bashing a minority group isnt exactly reading the current average sentences, but absolutely have heard that hate crime is taken pretty seriously and know it comes with a stiffer sentence. I think the numbers would certainly be different than the homicide numbers, but how much so I guess remains to be seen. I also think the deterrent effect, would be more than TGD's suggested "hate crime increase" for notoriety. No doubt in some cases, he's right, but overall, I think the deterrent is more probable.

We can speculate ITT on many reasons as to what makes threat deterrence effective and ineffective, but it would be ideal to focus more on what we've learned. For example, When Brute Force Fails (PDF) discusses the more effective enforcement strategies while highlighting the problems of current laws and enforcement methods. An interesting point was that criminals don't properly assess their risk of being caught--which can lead them to greatly underestimate the costs of their criminal actions (in terms of prison sentences).

Additionally, some criminals would vastly underestimate their chance of being caught after getting lucky for their first few crimes (recall that famous survey which asked people to estimate their intelligence as greater or less than the average person's. An overwhelming majority deemed their intelligence greater than the average person's. See also Dunning-Kruger effect and wiki on illusory superiority. In turn, prison sentences don't matter as much for many criminals. Besides, how often do juveniles estimate the long-term consequences of getting caught?

Finally, one more interesting point was the effectiveness gained by bureaucrats (parole officers and what not) in bending the rules; whereas, for other objectives it was very counter-productive. It's been years since I've read the book, so I can't be much clearer on this point, but it's worth mentioning the how much the degree of strict rule-following matters.

Peter Moskos' Cop in the Hood -- My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District is another good read on enforcement techniques. In short, he finds that simply having more police on the street allows them to tap more readily into the local knowledge, thus enabling them to more effectively resolve problems (as opposed to throwing people in prison, which really doesn't fix much). There's also the inherently ineffective culture created by the 9-11 response system. Cops typically do not want to approach a violent scene until the criminals have left (thus an incentive to delay--even for a few minutes, and it's worth it). Cruising in cars doesn't lend oneself to being readily approachable and connected with the community one 'serves'. Although it's a one-year study focused on Eastern Baltimore, it contains lessons which are more widely applicable.

Then there's his more provocative book, In Defense of Flogging (short article, another one), which I have yet to read, but the short articles are worth the read. They pose possibly better solutions, and although the topic may seem appalling, we should stop to consider that we live in a 'humane' society which instead cages people for years while taxing the rest.


Either way, it'll come down to the empirical studies, which might not clearly settle it; however, it's better than us hand waving, and it's better than us being fixated on one variable: imprisonment. My main concern is that regardless of the scientific findings, there would still be a large push against removing hate crime laws. Any politician who tries to will be (mis)labelled as racist/sexist/genderist, and it's not like the voting public would actually spend additional resources to learn more deeply about these issues since (1) the voting public is largely split on many desired political goals--each requiring a different amount of their attention/knowledge, and (2) some objectives are more important than others--e.g. some people value more time at work and with their family then spending more time studying.

In short, the constraints of emotional reasoning and ignorance will largely remain, and since that is the case, it makes even more sense to insist on a limited federal government, so that States and municipalities can have a larger role in public policies within a more competitive, innovative, and locally informed environment.

[john9blue]

he didn't get in one punch because he wasn't looking for a fight. he carried a gun for defense, not because he enjoys shooting people. martin initiated it and probably caught him by surprise.

You don't know any of that as fact. None. Zip. Zero.

it's very likely that what i just said was true. you can land a sucker punch on virtually anyone unless they are expecting you to throw it and are very quick. if zimmerman wanted to punch martin, he could have.

aafitz's latest bullshit argument, the argument that "zimmerman is a bad person because he is a pussy and a poor fighter" (don't ask for the logic behind this, there is none) falls apart when you examine the most likely chain of events that matches the evidence.

[oVo]

it's very likely that what i just said was true.

"Very likely" does not mean a thing and is not factual or true.

if zimmerman wanted to punch martin, he could have.

Fact is you do not know that he didn't punch Martin. Only fact you can be certain of is that Zimmerman did shoot and kill Martin.

[AAFitz]

he didn't get in one punch because he wasn't looking for a fight. he carried a gun for defense, not because he enjoys shooting people. martin initiated it and probably caught him by surprise.

You don't know any of that as fact. None. Zip. Zero.

it's very likely that what i just said was true. you can land a sucker punch on virtually anyone unless they are expecting you to throw it and are very quick. if zimmerman wanted to punch martin, he could have.

aafitz's latest bullshit argument, the argument that "zimmerman is a bad person because he is a pussy and a poor fighter" (don't ask for the logic behind this, there is none) falls apart when you examine the most likely chain of events that matches the evidence.

That wasnt an argument, and if you took it as such, well, I hope you live a long life with that perfectly developed sense of humor of yours. I forgot these deadpan jabs slip by you every time. Just so you know, missing such sarcasm, and plays on words is actually a sign of brain damage. I know someone who had a massive brain injury, with two surgeries, and you almost would never know. But, in any kind of sarcastic or deadpan, or play on words, it escapes him every time. Its the oddest thing. Its like he speaks another language, and you have to be careful what you say.

I hope you are fine and suspect as someone who thinks a kid is better off dead, probably just assumes the rest of thw world is as much of a sociopath as you obviously are, but in reality I was exaggerting and purposely so. It was also meant to be obvious and I doubt that anyone but yourself actually took it literally.

As far as not looking for a fight...well...as he told chased the kid, calling saying he was an asshole, and that he seemed to be on drugs....well....sure, Im sure he was just out for a polite conversation that should not have initiated any kind of violence whatsoever. I bet he even didn't know he had his gun with him.

And again, my point all along is that Zimmerman threatened Martin. I think to suggest Martin was the one walking through the streets looking for a fight is ridiculous. I think suggesting he didnt feel threatened after being chased by a guy, is utterly ridiculous, but then, you're the guy who thinks hes better off dead now...cuz, well, thats your version of logic, or morality or whatever you call evil these days.

Its a shame I cant continue this reasoned discussion with reasonable people. As with Scotty, I wish you luck in all things and can only hope you get everything you've ever deserved.

[AAFitz]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

Well, from what I recall, there was this study which compared homicide rates between the UK and the US in terms of prison sentences. IIRC, the UK average sentence was 12 years for murder while the US was much higher (definitely greater than 12, probably around 18 or 20?), yet the either the homicide rates didn't differ greatly, or the UK was slightly better.

I don't remember how the study controlled for relevant variables, but if what I recall is true, then it seems that greater prison sentences don't really reduce crime--past 12 years or so.

But what about less serious crimes with their lesser prison times? I'm not sure, but it's very likely that more pertinent studies have been done regarding hate crime laws and effectiveness. I'd expect similar outcomes.

I think its possible that homicide is different than assault and battery though. When you commit homicide, I have to assume you are assuming your gone forever, and the idea of 6 years changing that couldnt possibly factor in. Also, its an average, and I doubt many people even know the average time served for homicide.

However, when you get into lesser crimes, you instinctively know you might serve a little time if nailed for assault and battery, but I suspect, many, not all, could very well be deterred from hate crime, at least in some cases, because it does have the publicized effect of making you know its more time. Again, I have to assume some group going out bashing a minority group isnt exactly reading the current average sentences, but absolutely have heard that hate crime is taken pretty seriously and know it comes with a stiffer sentence. I think the numbers would certainly be different than the homicide numbers, but how much so I guess remains to be seen. I also think the deterrent effect, would be more than TGD's suggested "hate crime increase" for notoriety. No doubt in some cases, he's right, but overall, I think the deterrent is more probable.

We can speculate ITT on many reasons as to what makes threat deterrence effective and ineffective, but it would be ideal to focus more on what we've learned. For example, When Brute Force Fails (PDF) discusses the more effective enforcement strategies while highlighting the problems of current laws and enforcement methods. An interesting point was that criminals don't properly assess their risk of being caught--which can lead them to greatly underestimate the costs of their criminal actions (in terms of prison sentences).

Additionally, some criminals would vastly underestimate their chance of being caught after getting lucky for their first few crimes (recall that famous survey which asked people to estimate their intelligence as greater or less than the average person's. An overwhelming majority deemed their intelligence greater than the average person's. See also Dunning-Kruger effect and wiki on illusory superiority. In turn, prison sentences don't matter as much for many criminals. Besides, how often do juveniles estimate the long-term consequences of getting caught?

Finally, one more interesting point was the effectiveness gained by bureaucrats (parole officers and what not) in bending the rules; whereas, for other objectives it was very counter-productive. It's been years since I've read the book, so I can't be much clearer on this point, but it's worth mentioning the how much the degree of strict rule-following matters.

Peter Moskos' Cop in the Hood -- My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District is another good read on enforcement techniques. In short, he finds that simply having more police on the street allows them to tap more readily into the local knowledge, thus enabling them to more effectively resolve problems (as opposed to throwing people in prison, which really doesn't fix much). There's also the inherently ineffective culture created by the 9-11 response system. Cops typically do not want to approach a violent scene until the criminals have left (thus an incentive to delay--even for a few minutes, and it's worth it). Cruising in cars doesn't lend oneself to being readily approachable and connected with the community one 'serves'. Although it's a one-year study focused on Eastern Baltimore, it contains lessons which are more widely applicable.

Then there's his more provocative book, In Defense of Flogging (short article, another one), which I have yet to read, but the short articles are worth the read. They pose possibly better solutions, and although the topic may seem appalling, we should stop to consider that we live in a 'humane' society which instead cages people for years while taxing the rest.


Either way, it'll come down to the empirical studies, which might not clearly settle it; however, it's better than us hand waving, and it's better than us being fixated on one variable: imprisonment. My main concern is that regardless of the scientific findings, there would still be a large push against removing hate crime laws. Any politician who tries to will be (mis)labelled as racist/sexist/genderist, and it's not like the voting public would actually spend additional resources to learn more deeply about these issues since (1) the voting public is largely split on many desired political goals--each requiring a different amount of their attention/knowledge, and (2) some objectives are more important than others--e.g. some people value more time at work and with their family then spending more time studying.

In short, the constraints of emotional reasoning and ignorance will largely remain, and since that is the case, it makes even more sense to insist on a limited federal government, so that States and municipalities can have a larger role in public policies within a more competitive, innovative, and locally informed environment.

I agree with much of this and it is part of my opinion on it. As I said, the length of terms is irrelevant numerically, and obviously minority bashing gangs are hardly consulting their lawyers before attacking some group or individual, but I still think its a fair hypothesis, that publicizing that hate crimes are dealt with harshly absolutely can have an effect.

I think its fair to say that anti drunk driving laws have absolutely diminished drunk driving. Its a separate issue, but its not the technical changes to the law that matters, its the public awareness that it will be treated harshly, and en masse, there is definitely an effect. It hardly translates to every case, because core offenders will always be core offenders, but its all the other ones that absolutely are affected by public awareness, and I think its safe to say that most if not all understand now that hate crimes absolutely are dealt with more harshly and has a positive effect that counters the supposed thrill effect TGD fears.

As you said, all speculation. As far as your dream to revert back to the good ole days where everyone lived better with less laws and government...I can only

[AAFitz]

I'm saying, as it crystal clear on the 911 tape the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him, and Zimmerman said "okay" and he stopped.

He said okay....how do you know he stopped exactly where he was?

anyways...I cant believe I started again....good luck with your quest my friend, I hope you get exactly what you deserve in every way.

I know, it's on the unedited 911 tape, which you obviously have not listened to, yet base your entire tirade on.

And that's one heck of a question for you to even ask me, given you are the one going on for pages about how you know that he did not stop, and even say that is a reason for Trayvon to defend himself, except that didn't happen. Zimmerman did stop. I know the same way you know, but with 100% more evidence against what you imagine happened, based on a grade A first class edit&smear job.

To be fair, I don't blame you 100%, the media was lying about it from the start, as this thread documented extremely well. Many people were so misinformed, it had all the ingredients. But that is also the danger is living in a bubble . If all you gather from whatever keeps you informed is still the edited version of the 911 tape, it means you don't stray from the racebait editing galore sources, and what specific source you inform from, and that it's the only source.

The guy was chasing him on the assumption he was on drugs, assuming he was an asshole burgalar, and you dont think theres anyway that behavior could have been considered threatening to a kid walking in his parents neighborhood.

As far as the racebait, I never heard it, so its you that has no evidence there. You are assuming where I got my information, which is just ridiculous, and in this case wrong.

I do know he was a guy chasing an innocent kid through a neighborhood telling the cops he seemed to be on drugs and was an asshole burgalar. I think if I want to suspect race was a factor in that, I am more than justified in doing so. I think if you suggest race played no part and the same thing would have gone down if it was a white kid in a Polo shirt....by all means, do so. Its your fantasy. Do what you want with it.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's back up. Hate crimes didn't go unpunished. They just weren't called hate crimes and didn't carry extra punishment. If someone killed someone else (and was found guilty) the murderer was convicted of murder, regardless of whether motivated by racial hatred or not. I really don't want to operate under the assumption that hate crimes would otherwise go unpunished. It's politcking, frankly.

People should know that crimes against people are bad, not that it's worse if it's against a particular race. This probably seems like wishful thinking, but it's really not. I suspect (and can find out) that people continue to commit crimes against other people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, regarldess of whether it is labelled a hate crime or not. And I do suspect racial and sexual orientation based crimes are down. I believe this is because of changing culture (e.g. the acception of black culture by whites; the acception of gays through television shows, etc.). I don't think hate crimes are down because of hate crime legislation (although I'm sure someone will post something about a correlation).

Further, people aren't deterred from committing an act simply because it's criminal (whether that's smoking pot or murder). Otherwise, we wouldn't have a nice sized prison population. And I don't think people are deterred from committing a hate crime simply because it carries a label and a stiffer sentence.

There's a difference between being unpunished, and differently punished. I cant fathom that you dont believe there were quite a few cases in the past where white vs minority were punished less severely, especially in some regions of the country?

I agree that decision making, especially related to crime is complex and no one factor may or may not allow a crime to happen, but you are just guessing about the decision making of a racist criminal capable of assault, battery or murder, and I suggest, you probably aren't qualified to make that guess as to their decision making process...and I mean that as a compliment.

For the most part, real statistics are the only way to know the effectiveness of such laws. Until then, I dont think the racist attackers are being treated unfairly for their crimes. At worst, the other criminals are perhaps getting off too easy. Or are you suggesting the sentences for assault and battery are too severe?

Oh, I believe there were way more than a few cases where white defendants were not punished in proportion to the crime. I don't think that has anything to do with whether the crime was considered a hate crime or not; I think it has to do with a lot of other factors (the region's culture, the jury, the judge, the attorneys in question, the crime itself). What makes you think a court/jury in certain areas of the country are more likely to punish white defendants more if there's a hate crime as compared to where there's not a hate crime? Do you think a racist jury is more likely to convict and a judge more likely to sentence a white defendant for a hate crime if there is hate crime legislation? I can't believe that.

I have no idea whether sentences for assault and battery are too severe. It depends on the individual case. Ultimately, if a jury wants to take into account motive (e.g. racism), the jury should be allowed to do so without the legislature resorting to saying, "Murder is worse if there is a racial element and therefore you have to add at least 2-5 years to the sentence."

[thegreekdog]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

So he just followed him? He didnt confront him in any way or threaten him? There's no way Martin was threatened or acting in self defense?

Seriously, come on...Youre just lying if you can't see how someone might get more than nervous in that situation and make the first move. He was actually wrong to in this case, but not as wrong as Zimmerman was, because he was acting against the advice of law enforcement, who all but explained to him that it was a bad idea. Its just a shame they didnt convince him, but I think its pretty clear Zimmerman was the type that was going to ignore them anyways.

I don't know if Zimmerman threatened Martin or not. But, again, if you're feeling threatened, why is the first response to assault the person threatening you? That's not my first response (I'm not afraid to admit I'll try to avoid physical confrontation, despite my size). I'm not absolving Zimmerman from responsibility (mrsdwlk made the point that shooting someone is not a proportionate response either). He should have gone to jail for a lesser crime than what he was charged with, but that's not what happened because the prosecutor was trying to make a name for himself. What I have a problem with (and this is not you necessarily) is the idea that Martin made a reasonable response and was completely absolved of any responsibility. That's just stupid.

[AAFitz]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

So he just followed him? He didnt confront him in any way or threaten him? There's no way Martin was threatened or acting in self defense?

Seriously, come on...Youre just lying if you can't see how someone might get more than nervous in that situation and make the first move. He was actually wrong to in this case, but not as wrong as Zimmerman was, because he was acting against the advice of law enforcement, who all but explained to him that it was a bad idea. Its just a shame they didnt convince him, but I think its pretty clear Zimmerman was the type that was going to ignore them anyways.

I don't know if Zimmerman threatened Martin or not. But, again, if you're feeling threatened, why is the first response to assault the person threatening you? That's not my first response (I'm not afraid to admit I'll try to avoid physical confrontation, despite my size). I'm not absolving Zimmerman from responsibility (mrsdwlk made the point that shooting someone is not a proportionate response either). He should have gone to jail for a lesser crime than what he was charged with, but that's not what happened because the prosecutor was trying to make a name for himself. What I have a problem with (and this is not you necessarily) is the idea that Martin made a reasonable response and was completely absolved of any responsibility. That's just stupid.

Well, again, you are obviously being completely reasonable, and no one could ever know fully how much Martin was threatened or if Zimmerman actually really did threaten him, or if it was just accidental. Its at least as plausible that Martin had a short fuse and reacted too quickly. However, we know Zimmerman was amped up to say the least, had a gun, assumed he was chasing what he considered to be a [drug induced burgling asshole].

And when I wasnt arguing with the trolls, where I mostly fight fire with fire, Ive repeatedly agreed that it was a combination of reckless decisions by him, and I even sympathize with his situation completely.

As Martin, I myself would expect not to be followed through my neighborhood without being followed and chased by a guy with a gun. I am also quite sure I would not start attacking unless I felt a direct imminent threat. But, at that time, I feel I would be justified to act. I cant say Martin was, because no one really knows that part...mostly because he's dead.

You understand the subtleties of assault and battery unlike the phatscoot, who clearly never will. I actually agree that he wasn't at all guilty of anything more than some degree of manslaughter, and probably a lesser one.

Hell, ill go so far as to suggest to you Zimmerman should have probably just pulled out his gun, because in this particular case, the result would have been better. Ironically however, that probably would have surely led him to imprisonment.

I think we can definitely all agree the system is pretty fucked.

[BigBallinStalin]

We can speculate ITT on many reasons as to what makes threat deterrence effective and ineffective, but it would be ideal to focus more on what we've learned. For example, When Brute Force Fails (PDF) discusses the more effective enforcement strategies while highlighting the problems of current laws and enforcement methods. An interesting point was that criminals don't properly assess their risk of being caught--which can lead them to greatly underestimate the costs of their criminal actions (in terms of prison sentences).

Additionally, some criminals would vastly underestimate their chance of being caught after getting lucky for their first few crimes (recall that famous survey which asked people to estimate their intelligence as greater or less than the average person's. An overwhelming majority deemed their intelligence greater than the average person's. See also Dunning-Kruger effect and wiki on illusory superiority. In turn, prison sentences don't matter as much for many criminals. Besides, how often do juveniles estimate the long-term consequences of getting caught?

Finally, one more interesting point was the effectiveness gained by bureaucrats (parole officers and what not) in bending the rules; whereas, for other objectives it was very counter-productive. It's been years since I've read the book, so I can't be much clearer on this point, but it's worth mentioning the how much the degree of strict rule-following matters.

Peter Moskos' Cop in the Hood -- My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District is another good read on enforcement techniques. In short, he finds that simply having more police on the street allows them to tap more readily into the local knowledge, thus enabling them to more effectively resolve problems (as opposed to throwing people in prison, which really doesn't fix much). There's also the inherently ineffective culture created by the 9-11 response system. Cops typically do not want to approach a violent scene until the criminals have left (thus an incentive to delay--even for a few minutes, and it's worth it). Cruising in cars doesn't lend oneself to being readily approachable and connected with the community one 'serves'. Although it's a one-year study focused on Eastern Baltimore, it contains lessons which are more widely applicable.

Then there's his more provocative book, In Defense of Flogging (short article, another one), which I have yet to read, but the short articles are worth the read. They pose possibly better solutions, and although the topic may seem appalling, we should stop to consider that we live in a 'humane' society which instead cages people for years while taxing the rest.


Either way, it'll come down to the empirical studies, which might not clearly settle it; however, it's better than us hand waving, and it's better than us being fixated on one variable: imprisonment. My main concern is that regardless of the scientific findings, there would still be a large push against removing hate crime laws. Any politician who tries to will be (mis)labelled as racist/sexist/genderist, and it's not like the voting public would actually spend additional resources to learn more deeply about these issues since (1) the voting public is largely split on many desired political goals--each requiring a different amount of their attention/knowledge, and (2) some objectives are more important than others--e.g. some people value more time at work and with their family then spending more time studying.

In short, the constraints of emotional reasoning and ignorance will largely remain, and since that is the case, it makes even more sense to insist on a limited federal government, so that States and municipalities can have a larger role in public policies within a more competitive, innovative, and locally informed environment.

I agree with much of this and it is part of my opinion on it. As I said, the length of terms is irrelevant numerically, and obviously minority bashing gangs are hardly consulting their lawyers before attacking some group or individual, but I still think its a fair hypothesis, that publicizing that hate crimes are dealt with harshly absolutely can have an effect.

I think its fair to say that anti drunk driving laws have absolutely diminished drunk driving. Its a separate issue, but its not the technical changes to the law that matters, its the public awareness that it will be treated harshly, and en masse, there is definitely an effect. It hardly translates to every case, because core offenders will always be core offenders, but its all the other ones that absolutely are affected by public awareness, and I think its safe to say that most if not all understand now that hate crimes absolutely are dealt with more harshly and has a positive effect that counters the supposed thrill effect TGD fears.

As you said, all speculation. As far as your dream to revert back to the good ole days where everyone lived better with less laws and government...I can only

Yeah, all you've done is laugh, but it's funny because you've yet to provide any substantial criticism against limited government. If you'd like to defend the modern welfare state, be my guest.

[thegreekdog]

And AA, I get your issue with some conservatives on this. There is almost a sense of glee that Martin was killed and that Zimmerman was exonerated. I don't think this is the right emotion either, but I pick and choose my battles with conservatives.

[Phatscotty]

I'm saying, as it crystal clear on the 911 tape the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him, and Zimmerman said "okay" and he stopped.

He said okay....how do you know he stopped exactly where he was?

anyways...I cant believe I started again....good luck with your quest my friend, I hope you get exactly what you deserve in every way.

I know, it's on the unedited 911 tape, which you obviously have not listened to, yet base your entire tirade on.

And that's one heck of a question for you to even ask me, given you are the one going on for pages about how you know that he did not stop, and even say that is a reason for Trayvon to defend himself, except that didn't happen. Zimmerman did stop. I know the same way you know, but with 100% more evidence against what you imagine happened, based on a grade A first class edit&smear job.

To be fair, I don't blame you 100%, the media was lying about it from the start, as this thread documented extremely well. Many people were so misinformed, it had all the ingredients. But that is also the danger is living in a bubble . If all you gather from whatever keeps you informed is still the edited version of the 911 tape, it means you don't stray from the racebait editing galore sources, and what specific source you inform from, and that it's the only source.

The guy was chasing him on the assumption he was on drugs, assuming he was an asshole burgalar, and you dont think theres anyway that behavior could have been considered threatening to a kid walking in his parents neighborhood.

As far as the racebait, I never heard it, so its you that has no evidence there. You are assuming where I got my information, which is just ridiculous, and in this case wrong.

I do know he was a guy chasing an innocent kid through a neighborhood telling the cops he seemed to be on drugs and was an asshole burgalar. I think if I want to suspect race was a factor in that, I am more than justified in doing so. I think if you suggest race played no part and the same thing would have gone down if it was a white kid in a Polo shirt....by all means, do so. Its your fantasy. Do what you want with it.

lol what a bunch of bill. Chasing someone isn't a crime, nor do you know he was chasing him, nor does that give Trayvon the right to physically attack anybody.

We do know that when the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman they did not need him to follow Trayvon, Zimmerman said 'okay'
and he stopped following him.

If white kids with polo shirts were repeatedly reported destroying the neighborhood for months before the shooting, then yes I would expect Zimmerman would have done the exact same thing.

The racism fantasy only comes from racists who are unable to do anything without making race the priority.

[john9blue]

LOL I WUZ JUST KIDDING THE WHOLE TIME LOL I TROLL U

seriously? this is your defense?

stand by your baseless ad-hominem arguments when i call you out on them, and maybe you can maintain a shred of my respect after being defeated.

And again, my point all along is that Zimmerman threatened Martin. I think to suggest Martin was the one walking through the streets looking for a fight is ridiculous. I think suggesting he didnt feel threatened after being chased by a guy, is utterly ridiculous, but then, you're the guy who thinks hes better off dead now...cuz, well, thats your version of logic, or morality or whatever you call evil these days.

Its a shame I cant continue this reasoned discussion with reasonable people. As with Scotty, I wish you luck in all things and can only hope you get everything you've ever deserved.

MARTIN TURNED AROUND AND CONFRONTED ZIMMERMAN. jesus f*ck. get the facts right. you are not "more reasonable" or "more logical" than me, and never will be, especially if you keep ignoring the facts.

i certainly do hope that i get what i deserve, because the world would benefit from what i have to offer.

it's very likely that what i just said was true.

"Very likely" does not mean a thing and is not factual or true.

if zimmerman wanted to punch martin, he could have.

Fact is you do not know that he didn't punch Martin. Only fact you can be certain of is that Zimmerman did shoot and kill Martin.

i'm considering pulling a chang and claiming that the burden of proof is on YOU, as the accuser, but instead i'll just remind you that you have no clue how our legal system works. you examine circumstantial evidence as well as direct, proven evidence to determine guilt.

i hope you never get called for jury duty.

[Phatscotty]

[Phatscotty]

And AA, I get your issue with some conservatives on this. There is almost a sense of glee that Martin was killed and that Zimmerman was exonerated. I don't think this is the right emotion either, but I pick and choose my battles with conservatives.

It's extremely important for American's to know that we can act in self defense, and even more important for criminals to know.

It's not an emotion, it's a Right, a Liberty, and the lynchpin of Freedom.

[thegreekdog]

And AA, I get your issue with some conservatives on this. There is almost a sense of glee that Martin was killed and that Zimmerman was exonerated. I don't think this is the right emotion either, but I pick and choose my battles with conservatives.

It's extremely important for American's to know that we can act in self defense, and even more important for criminals to know.

It's not an emotion, it's a Right, a Liberty, and the lynchpin of Freedom.

Okay, except Martin wasn't a criminal.

I said this before too, but Zimmerman was completely unreasonable as well (let's ignore the use of extreme and possibly excessive force). If I go walking in a bad neighborhood after the cops tell me not to, am I being reasonable?

Seriously though... someone died. And he wasn't trying to burgle Zimmerman's house or rape Zimmerman's wife or kill Zimmerman's kids.

[john9blue]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

[thegreekdog]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

Zimmerman wasn't declare innocent and he certainly wasn't declared not guilty of lesser crimes. Maybe you want to rephrase your question. Something like: "How was self defense a proper defense if Martin wasn't engaged in a crime?"

[thegreekdog]

By the way, you know what bothers me about the Knockout Game? It's cowardly. These kids aren't going up to someone and saying, "Let's fight." They're finding a person (sometimes a woman, sometimes the elderly), running up BEHIND the person and punching the person. That's the height of cowardice so, while that bothers me generally, it also begs the question as to what bragging rights are accrued by knocking someone out by hitting them in the head from behind. Doesn't seem like something someone would brag about.

[john9blue]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

Zimmerman wasn't declare innocent and he certainly wasn't declared not guilty of lesser crimes. Maybe you want to rephrase your question. Something like: "How was self defense a proper defense if Martin wasn't engaged in a crime?"

you're right, i'm not that versed in legal terminology, which is partly why i asked.

so, do you have an answer to the question you posed?

[Phatscotty]

nah, F that. There are always streaks of theft going on where I live all up and down my block. Things will quiet down then out of nowhere one day 6 cars up n down the street had their windows busted out and their locks popped and their trunks pried, and everyone suffers for the day misses work and costs 50,000 worth of damage and insurance headaches, all so some punk can make a quick cash in for a couple hundred dollars. It happens a couple times every summer since they built the low income housing in the middle of our neighborhood. All the gas stations and restaurants around the new development have gone to hell too.

If I come home one morning, and see my property or my neighbors property being stolen, I'm pulling over and confronting them and chasing them off if I have to. And yes even if no property has been stolen, but I see someone walking down the street that I know does not belong there, I am going to drive by them slow as hell, mean mug n show my fronts, as well as get a description. And I'm not going to worry for a second about being accused of stalking that person or judging them without reason or being suspicious without cause.

[notyou2]

Confronting someone robbing from cars is very different than confronting a kid walking home with a soda pop and and a bag of skittles.

[Phatscotty]

Confronting someone robbing from cars is very different than confronting a kid walking home with a soda pop and and a bag of skittles.

and neither gives anyone the right to physically attack someone

[notyou2]

How do you know with 100% certainty that Martin attacked Zimmerman first? You realize that most 17 year olds are intimidated by adults. The truth is most likely the other way around.

[Phatscotty]

How do you know with 100% certainty that Martin attacked Zimmerman first? You realize that most 17 year olds are intimidated by adults. The truth is most likely the other way around.

Because we know that Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman's busted up face and lacerations on the back of his head

and we know Martin was not attacked, the autopsy showed Martin's only injuries were to his knuckles, most likely caused by Zimmerman's face.

You are correct, it is not 100% certainty. But the evidence is clear enough for any reasonable person to made a reasonable judgement as to what extremely likely happened. It's also true that to say the opposite (zimmerman attacked Martin) would fly in the face of all the evidence.