The Zimmerman Trial (Be Nice)

[Freewave]

Nobody has a right to trespass on other people's property and invade their privacy.

Right but Zimmerman wasn't protecting HIS property and it he was the community watchdog he didn't do much WATCHING in this case.

I don't get while protecting your own property is legally more important than protecting the community, that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess that's why I lean socialist.

It's important when there was no initial crime and now a 17 year old is dead. This kid was not terrorizing the community. That's why it's important.

[ganondox]

I don't get while protecting your own property is legally more important than protecting the community, that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess that's why I lean socialist.

that's the logic most american gangs at best if we Americans use that logic we will wind up wit a Gotham city impostors mindset.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. First, which logic are you referring to, mine or the legal one? Are you saying that's the logic that most American Gangs use, and that if Americans use it will end up a "Gotham City Imposters" (what does that mean?) mindset?

Right but Zimmerman wasn't protecting HIS property and it he was the community watchdog he didn't do much WATCHING in this case.

I don't get while protecting your own property is legally more important than protecting the community, that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess that's why I lean socialist.

It's important when there was no initial crime and now a 17 year old is dead. This kid was not terrorizing the community. That's why it's important.

Zimmer didn't commit a crime by following him either. It's important to realize that. Unless he attacked Martin than nothing he did was illegal. Stupid, maybe, but not illegal.

The big flaw in that system, is now you have a registered address of every gun owner in the country, and in the event (however unlikely, but possible) that the government attempts to take over the country by force, they have the ability to visit the majority of gun owners and confiscate their weapons first, eliminating the possibility of an insurgency or uprising that could overrun the government.

It's not as far fetched of a scenario than it seems, and it's hard to picture America becoming oppressive because we've had it good for us for quite some time, but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

This is getting off-top, but if you want to fight against a government you wouldn't use guns, you would use bombs. For one, it's easier to make a bomb and acquire the supplies to make one, they do more damage, they can be planted and they can destroy infrastructure. There is a reason that they are the weapon of choice by terrorists. Also, the chaotic nature of bombs versus the pinpointed nature of guns makes guns a lot more choice weapon for controlling a populace. If you look at any uprising in the news it's the oppressive government with the guns and the rebelling people with the bombs.

[Freewave]

The big flaw in that system, is now you have a registered address of every gun owner in the country, and in the event (however unlikely, but possible) that the government attempts to take over the country by force, they have the ability to visit the majority of gun owners and confiscate their weapons first, eliminating the possibility of an insurgency or uprising that could overrun the government.

It's not as far fetched of a scenario than it seems, and it's hard to picture America becoming oppressive because we've had it good for us for quite some time, but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

The other issue with gun control measures is that it only effects the law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't register their guns into a national registry, and more than likely they would steal weapons from law-abiding citizens to commit their crimes to avoid any legal case tracing the crime back to them.

Criminals have a sense of self-preservation as well. That's why the majority of mass shootings occur in schools, movie theaters, and federal buildings, all of which are illegal for a person to carry a gun at. They have a much bigger chance of success when they know they will not be met force by force. Criminals are much less likely to commit crimes against innocent people if they don't know who might be carrying a weapon or not.

This is getting pretty off-topic here when gun owners start talking about people confiscating their weapons en force. I find this both ridiculous as we've never gone that route in this country, this country is very pro-guns, and more guns were sold DURING the Obama years then draconian measures made to curb them. It's just not relevent and not happening. If anything the amount of guns are endangering people who are not packing at all. They do definitely aid in the amount of suicides that occur in the households where they are owned.

If we're done talking about this case then that's fine but we're definitely starting to go off-topic now to something that should be another thread if that's the case. MLR really hasn't had a big off-topic debate pit and I'm not sure we need one as part of the overall scope of what this music site is about.

[itroitnyah]

Ok, so what's the most annoying about this trial is the uproar of the media and the public. People are marching around like, Oh, you're all racists, we're all Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was a monster, blahblahblah, and it's really annoying. What's done is done, and if it's been done it's going to be done again, whether you like it or not. Whether this was a result of racism or not, stuff like this is going to continue. So the most you can do is shrug, teach your kids safety measures and moral codes, and do your best to follow these measures and morals. It's never going to stop, no matter how hard you try, no matter what peaceful utopia the president promises, no matter what laws go into place, there's always going to be violence and murder and burglary and pretty much any crime you can name.

and then there are the idiots who call out for changing laws to prevent things like these. Once again, isn't going to change anything. Maybe at most, you'll stop law abiding citizens from not harming anybody like they have been and will be anyways. Changing laws won't stop criminals, like they're going to say "oh, there's a law against owning firearms, I guess I'll just get rid of my guns now". The laws are damn fair and if you feel you aren't being treated fairly by the law or a law seems awful, buckle up sugar plum and grow up. Everybody else has the same laws as you do, and just because you follow a law to the periods at the end of the sentences doesn't mean everybody is going to as well. This world is really nothing but a survival of the fittest, in a minor sense.

[caprixsnare]

that peoples interpretations of right and wrong vary so when people do things to protect their town someone else can consider said act as unnecessary or even terrorist.

also our police system should be the only people allowed to pursue people if they feel they are suspicious because their trained in the art seeing the world as grey instead of black and white (or should be). on top of that a law enforcement uniform is better than a polo or a bright yellow t-shirt when trying to negotiate.

[topitmunkeydog]

Also shortly before this case I read To Kill a Mockingbird and Camus' L'Etranger. The similarities to this case are interesting.

Caprix read the 911 call log, the police officer says "you don't need to follow this man"

[Nine Volt]

Well I was massively ninja'd and therefore everything in this post has probably been said, but still :3

ok gun control theory is a double edge sword too much gun control= mexican cartells own the country

too little= Virginia tech once a month and shooting visitors in the shower.

personally i believe a license to own a gun should take years and should be a mild pain in the flank to maintain legal ownership this way we can reduce the amount of people use guns to open their own door in the morning. and second of all guns are a privilege not a god given right no one wants to be shot and those who disagree probably have never been shot before. guns are not necessary at point blank and whenever someone gets shot it usually causes a crap ton of ripples in the local community. if people were angels then guns would be used for something other than killing and if guns were angels they would be called tazers.

Go read Navron's previous post about Chicago and gun laws. To summarize, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country (indeed, guns are practically banned city-wide for civilians), and yet Chicago also has some of the worst gun violence in the country. In other words, gun laws like licenses and all that crap don't really matter when it comes to reducing violence. Even if guns are outlawed altogether, people are going to find ways to get them. They always do, and Chicago is a prime example.

[Mr.Afrox]

Bottom-line...someone died that day...

[ganondox]

Ok, so what's the most annoying about this trial is the uproar of the media and the public. People are marching around like, Oh, you're all racists, we're all Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was a monster, blahblahblah, and it's really annoying. What's done is done, and if it's been done it's going to be done again, whether you like it or not. Whether this was a result of racism or not, stuff like this is going to continue. So the most you can do is shrug, teach your kids safety measures and moral codes, and do your best to follow these measures and morals. It's never going to stop, no matter how hard you try, no matter what peaceful utopia the president promises, no matter what laws go into place, there's always going to be violence and murder and burglary and pretty much any crime you can name.

and then there are the idiots who call out for changing laws to prevent things like these. Once again, isn't going to change anything. Maybe at most, you'll stop law abiding citizens from not harming anybody like they have been and will be anyways. Changing laws won't stop criminals, like they're going to say "oh, there's a law against owning firearms, I guess I'll just get rid of my guns now". The laws are damn fair and if you feel you aren't being treated fairly by the law or a law seems awful, buckle up sugar plum and grow up. Everybody else has the same laws as you do, and just because you follow a law to the periods at the end of the sentences doesn't mean everybody is going to as well. This world is really nothing but a survival of the fittest, in a minor sense.

Laws were made to be changed and sometimes they really aren't fair. As citizens in a democratic nation it's in their rights to try to addend the laws, and it's your civil duty to try to bring about justice. If the laws were never changed than, let's see, black people ccan't vote, women couldn't vote, well, not even poor people could vote! And that's just talking about voting rights! Quite frankly I have big problem with your attitude, you essentially want to insist that everyone just be content with any situation, not matter how oppressive it is, even if they have the power to change it. Next time you enter a building, I want you to look around and take note of every braille sign and of every wheel chair ramp and push button. Next time you buy something, I want you to take note of any warning labels of nutrion facts. Next time you apply for a job, I want you to take note of every form you sign. Next time you drive in a car, I want you to take note of every seatbelt, every traffic signal, and every stop sign. People had to fight for those things, and I can bring up the history of the laws relating to several of those things. You are just taking all these things done for your safety for granted.

Now, I'm not saying law change is necessarily the appropriate solution to this case, and it's certainly a good idea to educate your children on safety (don't jump strangers! You might just get shot!), but talking about potential law reform is a perfectly reasonable response. The vast majority of law changes happen because of court cases like this one, civil or criminal. What you are doing is taking a piss on people's fundamental civil rights and showing great disrespect for everything people who wouldn't just suck up the injustice ended up providing for you.

[Nine Volt]

Bottom-line...someone died that day...

People die every day. A lot of people die every day.

This is not relevant or constructive to the discussion. Someone, either Zimmerman or Martin, could've died in their encounter, and Zimmerman just got lucky. Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete, and Zimmerman just happened to have a gun on him. What if he didn't? Then this whole thing may have been just another murder, but no, people have to be so quick to pull the race card and blow this whole thing far out of proportion.

[caprixsnare]

Bottom-line...someone died that day...

People die every day. A lot of people die every day.

This is not relevant or constructive to the discussion. Someone, either Zimmerman or Martin, could've died in their encounter, and Zimmerman just got lucky. Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete, and Zimmerman just happened to have a gun on him. What if he didn't? Then this whole thing may have been just another murder, but no, people have to be so quick to pull the race card and blow this whole thing far out of proportion.

there are plenty of other weapons that could do the trick like like pepper spray or a tazer ive seen them in action they work 80-95% of the time

[vladnuke]

Ok, so what's the most annoying about this trial is the uproar of the media and the public. People are marching around like, Oh, you're all racists, we're all Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was a monster, blahblahblah, and it's really annoying. What's done is done, and if it's been done it's going to be done again, whether you like it or not. Whether this was a result of racism or not, stuff like this is going to continue. So the most you can do is shrug, teach your kids safety measures and moral codes, and do your best to follow these measures and morals. It's never going to stop, no matter how hard you try, no matter what peaceful utopia the president promises, no matter what laws go into place, there's always going to be violence and murder and burglary and pretty much any crime you can name.

and then there are the idiots who call out for changing laws to prevent things like these. Once again, isn't going to change anything. Maybe at most, you'll stop law abiding citizens from not harming anybody like they have been and will be anyways. Changing laws won't stop criminals, like they're going to say "oh, there's a law against owning firearms, I guess I'll just get rid of my guns now". The laws are damn fair and if you feel you aren't being treated fairly by the law or a law seems awful, buckle up sugar plum and grow up. Everybody else has the same laws as you do, and just because you follow a law to the periods at the end of the sentences doesn't mean everybody is going to as well. This world is really nothing but a survival of the fittest, in a minor sense.

"If you feel you are treated unfairly by an unfair law, grow up."

Yeah bruh, no need to abolish slavery, or stop poll taxes and get rid of "fair laws". The whole fucking magna carta is just some document that never did anything to stop kings. No one's ever gotten anything done by talking, but people sure have started some shit by talking.

Get that stank backwards bullshit directly out of my face.

Calling Stand your Ground a fair law is ridiculous, how the fuck are you going to champion a law that basically says "If you FEEL threatened by anyone, you can shoot them dead" and then not champion it when its used by PoC while they are defending themselves.

http://cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=national&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/&feed_id=1&videoid=37&catid=57433184

Nah bruh, you need to chill. Because this shit doesn't concern you. No one's gonna follow your ass and shoot you. No one's gonna follow you around a store and question you.

And guess what? There are already states that don't have Stand Your Ground laws. Laws change all the damn time. So stop with this whole "nothing's gonna change" bullshit. Shit changes, thats a goddamn fact of life. And you can bet your ass this shit's going to change, along with a whole lot of other things.

[ganondox]

Bottom-line...someone died that day...

People die every day. A lot of people die every day.

This is not relevant or constructive to the discussion. Someone, either Zimmerman or Martin, could've died in their encounter, and Zimmerman just got lucky. Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete, and Zimmerman just happened to have a gun on him. What if he didn't? Then this whole thing may have been just another murder, but no, people have to be so quick to pull the race card and blow this whole thing far out of proportion.

there are plenty of other weapons that could do the trick like like pepper spray or a tazer ive seen them in action they work 80-95% of the time

Yeah, but did Zimmerman have pepper spray on him? We are discussing the Zimmerman case, not self defense laws in general. You are certainly allowed to talk about self defense laws and gun control and how that relates to the case and what implications this case has on them, but the existence of tasers and pepperspray do not change Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

[Navron]

This video was just uploaded yesterday, and shows some new interesting perspectives into the case:

[Nine Volt]

This video was just uploaded yesterday, and shows some new interesting perspectives into the case:

Wow, this is an excellent video.
Definitely going to subscribe to them
Nope, they're all conservatives and incredibly bigoted. Still an excellent video

[ganondox]

This video was just uploaded yesterday, and shows some new interesting perspectives into the case:

I didn't know about the potential drug use. I looked up lean, and this game up. It's chock full of various sources.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -violence/

EDIT: That's what I get for posting before I finish watching the video. He specifically brought that website up as one of his sources.

Wow, this is an excellent video.
Definitely going to subscribe to them
Nope, they're all conservatives. Still an excellent video

This is why acknowledging Ad Hominem is important. These aren't normally the type of people I'd side with, but facts are facts, it doesn't matter who presents them.

[Nine Volt]

Wow, this is an excellent video.
Definitely going to subscribe to them
Nope, they're all conservatives and bigots. Still an excellent video

This is why acknowledging Ad Hominem is important. These aren't normally the type of people I'd side with, but facts are facts, it doesn't matter who presents them.

Yeah, the people on that channel are incredibly bigoted, but luckily this video doesn't showcase that. It's an excellent argument against Trayvon and I advise everyone to watch it, especially Caprixsnare and Topit.

[itroitnyah]

To the two that replied to me, bringing up laws that were changed a long time ago isn't relevant. I don't study or read up on laws because frankly I don't care about the laws, the laws are basically common sense, imo. The laws I was mostly referring to as being fair were the ones that applied in this situation. However, I do see all the laws as far as I know them, to be fair at the moment. If you think you can prove me wrong, tell me one law that is unfair as of this time period, don't refer to some shit law from 1850.

[ganondox]

To the two that replied to me, bringing up laws that were changed a long time ago isn't relevant. I don't study or read up on laws because frankly I don't care about the laws, the laws are basically common sense, imo. The laws I was mostly referring to as being fair were the ones that applied in this situation. However, I do see all the laws as far as I know them, to be fair at the moment. If you think you can prove me wrong, tell me one law that is unfair as of this time period, don't refer to some shit law from 1850.

You think those were changed a long time ago? A lot of those were within the last 50 years, which is nothing. Do you really think we fixed every problem with the justice system in the last 50 years? It's the same general time period. Also, laws aren't made to be common sense, they are made to protect people. Anyway, you obviously agree with Stand Your Ground, but if you want to look at some other unfair laws that are in play NOW than just look at Copyright Law. It's completely ridiculous, and the opposite of common sense. If you don't care for Copyright and want to look at broader social issues, Don't Ask Don't Tell was only repealed a few years ago. Legal change is still very important, there is no reason why it should just stop being important now.

[itroitnyah]

Actually, the copyright law is fair, and while I'm not going to say I'm happy with it, it does do its best to allow corporations and companies to protect their copyrighted content or products or such. Some companies may choose to abuse this law, in such cases as occasionally Hasbro, but you just shrug your shoulders and move on, unless you want to hire a team of lawyers to fight them. And in each case that I recall in which Hasbro took something down because of copyrights, they were justified. The "Witchcraft is Magic" and "Fighting is Magic" comes to mind, as they didn't want to have a negative imagery associated with their product. So while you may get frustrated with the copyright law, it's fair.

[Nine Volt]

Let's not turn this into an argument on copyright law.

[ganondox]

Actually, the copyright law is fair, and while I'm not going to say I'm happy with it, it does do its best to allow corporations and companies to protect their copyrighted content or products or such. Some companies may choose to abuse this law, in such cases as occasionally Hasbro, but you just shrug your shoulders and move on, unless you want to hire a team of lawyers to fight them. And in each case that I recall in which Hasbro took something down because of copyrights, they were justified. The "Witchcraft is Magic" and "Fighting is Magic" comes to mind, as they didn't want to have a negative imagery associated with their product. So while you may get frustrated with the copyright law, it's fair.

Have you actually read Copyright Laws? I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about the actual laws. I want you to do some research on Copyright Laws and their history and tell me with a straight face that they are fair. The reason they are the way they are is entirely to benefit one company: Disney. Patent laws are even worse.

Just shrug your shoulders? I want to see you shrug your shoulders when your entire life get's ruined from legal entanglement. That's stupid. People should make a fuss as that's the only way to actually get something done, to right the wrong. Things aren't going to get any better if you don't do anything.

Also, I added Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[Navron]

LOL @ your edit Nine Volt

Unfortunately a lot of these sites have some very strong right wing opinions, but like he said in the video, the link ganondox posted isn't just right wing blabble. There are facebook posts, twitter posts, and the ACTUAL autopsy report itself, that indicate Trayvon was regularly abusing cough syrup. The side-effects of which may include paranoia, hallucinations, and (in some people) violent aggression on par with PCP and Ketamine.

I don't really think I need to speculate or ponder the situation much more. I've got a pretty solid idea about what happened at this point.

Also...when did we start discussing copyright law?

[Freewave]

This video was just uploaded yesterday, and shows some new interesting perspectives into the case:

I didn't know about the potential drug use. I looked up lean, and this game up. It's chock full of various sources.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -violence/

EDIT: That's what I get for posting before I finish watching the video. He specifically brought that website up as one of his sources.

Wow, this is an excellent video.
Definitely going to subscribe to them
Nope, they're all conservatives. Still an excellent video

This is why acknowledging Ad Hominem is important. These aren't normally the type of people I'd side with, but facts are facts, it doesn't matter who presents them.

So was he doing "mixed martial arts" on top of Zimmerman or bashing his head into the ground? This story keeps changing to suit who is telling it.

Saying that he had 2 of the 3 ingredients to make Lean is different then implying he was ON IT or HAD made it. Is there proof he had liver damage?

You're assuming that because they said it in this video and they sourced it from information on the internet and they repeated it that it's true. Only way to VERIFY that is to go through the same evidence. Otherwise you're effectively watching a 9/11 theorist video or a Michael Moore doc and not digging deeper at "facts" are being manipulated.

There are a lot of implications made in that video that aren't necessarilly facts. I'm not disputing that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman severly (once the altercation began), that he couldn't be on his way to being a juvenile delinquent, thought he was tough, could like drugs, or that the media did a POOR job of showing both sides of this story. But in the end if a bigoted right wing channel wants to villify this dead kid with a lot of persumptions and character assassinations then I'll consider who's conveying that information, what they actually are saying, and more importantly why.

[Nine Volt]

This video was just uploaded yesterday, and shows some new interesting perspectives into the case:

I didn't know about the potential drug use. I looked up lean, and this game up. It's chock full of various sources.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -violence/

EDIT: That's what I get for posting before I finish watching the video. He specifically brought that website up as one of his sources.

Wow, this is an excellent video.
Definitely going to subscribe to them
Nope, they're all conservatives. Still an excellent video

This is why acknowledging Ad Hominem is important. These aren't normally the type of people I'd side with, but facts are facts, it doesn't matter who presents them.

Well saying that he had 2 of the 3 ingredients to make Lean is different then implying he was ON IT or HAD made it. There are a lot of implications made in that video that aren't necessarilly facts. I'm not disputing that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman severly, that he couldn't be on his way to being a juvenile delinquent, thought he was tough, could like drugs, or that the media did a POOR job of showing both sides of this story. But in the end if a bigoted right wing channel wants to villify this dead kid with a lot of persumptions and character assassinations then I'll consider who's conveying that information, what they actually are saying, and more importantly why.

Trayvon's autopsy showed that his liver had damage consistent with Lean use, and his actions were consistent with common side effects of Lean. Plus, his texts/Facebook (I don't remember which) show him being told how to make Lean with the two ingredients he had on him by someone. It is highly unlikely that he did not use Lean.