Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #792277
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
12712 Re: Tuesday ramblings--The days of our lives!
   CF, You are the first to mention to me that Martin was looking in... 		joe-taylor   ALEA   27 Feb 2013
 3:15 AM
12710 Re: Tuesday ramblings--The days of our lives!
   Hi Cactus Flower, Zimmerman was instructed NOT to follow Martin.... 		clo   ALEA   27 Feb 2013
 2:00 AM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Tuesday ramblings--The days of our lives!

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Wed, 27 Feb 13 1:39 AM
Msg. 12709 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12708 by joe-taylor)
Jump to msg. #  

hi jt,

far as i know, the colour thing was an invention of the networks.

the story as i understood it: he was an off-duty neighbourhood watch chappie who allegedly saw a suspicious-looking guy looking in windows. in accordance with the law, he carried a concealed weapon. he was following the suspect at a distance. somehow, for no clear reason, the two ended in a confrontation. zimmerman alleges he was attacked by martin, who was considerably larger. he sustained injuries during the fight, including a broken nose. zimmerman alleges martin reached for his gun but he shot him in self-defense.

martin is not present to tell his version, of course. but zimmerman's story isn't incredible to me. they could easily be presented in exactly the same way from martin's viewpoint and lead to the same conclusion. but with martin seeing zimmerman as a figure of fear.

but in my opinion, those facts do not amount to a murder story. they are the sorts of events that are bound to happen in the legal setting florida has created in the kind of neighbourhood we are talking about.

two people fearful of one another. plenty of testosterone. each one thinking the other is a baddie. the guy losing the fight has a gun. he uses it.

how can you have a hate crime? what did zimmerman hate about the kid? that he was wearing a hoodie? i see no mens rea in this story. only the actus reus. and the actus reus occurs during an uneven fight in which the losing party allegedly fears for his life.

if you permit hidden weapons, this kind of thing will happen.

for me, in this case, the law is an ass. it was a simple case of assault if the law made weapons-carrying impermissible. but the law allows some folks to carry weapons. and so a young man lost his life.

same weapons kill ducks, of course. but if a society chooses the right to bear arms, there will be deaths of this type. and in spite of the death of one of the two actors, the other one may not be guilty of murder.

the point is, the second amendment provides a hideous right which turns simple fights into fatalities.