The Trayvon Martin case is seriously pissing me off

[Tentacruel]

I know there was already a thread about this, but all the sh** is resurfacing and it's getting worse.

So if you don't know what happened originally, read [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin"]here.[/url]


So now basically people are all ranting and rioting about racism and how it's all one big conspiracy to oppress black people.

But what's got me angry, being a Florida resident, is that everyone is saying to get rid of the stand-your-ground law which allows someone being attacked to, well, you know.

Frankly it's kind of illogical, as the law clearly isn't protecting him. He is now being tried for 2nd Degree murder. The Stand Your Ground law allows you to stand your ground, not go around attacking people, so I fail to see the problem. I can see why some people don't like the law but sheesh.


Anyway, it's a current news topic and what-not, so it's fair game. Discuss it.

[Fusion X. Denver]

As someone from New Jersey, I find it highly frustrating that I can't subdue an attacker with force if attacked for long. According to its laws, once I ensure my safety, if I go after him, then roles are reversed...which is stupid, because I have to either incapacitate him (which would require brutal force) or run away, which is hard to do depending on the setting. So I can sympathize with what you're feeling.

What conditions would this supposed new law have in place of the old one?

[Just Crouton]

Before this case, I didn't know WHITE Hispanics existed.

I like how the only photos they show of Trayvon are him as a kid. One has to wonder if he was a thug in the present. Apparently, the nicest thing that could be said about him is the he played football. Ahem, thug?

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. People die all the time, and they don't get special treatment like this.

[Vairocana]

[quote name='God Crouton!!!' timestamp='1335477734' post='5926069']

I like how the only photos they show of Trayvon are him as a kid. One has to wonder if he was a thug in the present. Apparently, the nicest thing that could be said about him is the he played football. Ahem, thug?
[/quote]

Thanks for assuming things about him. Which, even if he were a "thug", it's still a 17 year old versus a 28 year old grown man.

As for the "stand your ground" law, it seems to be really helpful, [url="http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13597"]protecting abused women and the like[/url].

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Vairocana' timestamp='1335490750' post='5926333']
As for the "stand your ground" law, it seems to be really helpful, [url="http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13597"]protecting abused women and the like[/url].
[/quote]

Wow, I never heard of that. I actually even better about defending my viewpoint.


[quote name='Fusion X. Denver' timestamp='1335477631' post='5926068']
As someone from New Jersey, I find it highly frustrating that I can't subdue an attacker with force if attacked for long. According to its laws, once I ensure my safety, if I go after him, then roles are reversed...which is stupid, because I have to either incapacitate him (which would require brutal force) or run away, which is hard to do depending on the setting. So I can sympathize with what you're feeling.

What conditions would this supposed new law have in place of the old one?
[/quote]
I'm not really sure. People calling for the law's removal are just mindlessly bitching because they associate the law with preemptive violence when it is not the case.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

As a pacifist I really don't care either way. The stand your ground law will apply to those who do stand their ground. However there is a fair amount of people who would do so and I love it how its being called racism when George Zimmerman is clearly hispanic and even the stand your ground law can't help his case now. It makes no sense to get rid of the law and frankly the fact its controversial is retarded at best.
But again, as a pacifist I really don't care.

[Vairocana]

[quote name='Cronus' timestamp='1335664126' post='5927989']
As a pacifist I really don't care either way. The stand your ground law will apply to those who do stand their ground. However there is a fair amount of people who would do so and I love it how its being called racism when George Zimmerman is clearly hispanic and even the stand your ground law can't help his case now. It makes no sense to get rid of the law and frankly the fact its controversial is retarded at best.
But again, as a pacifist I really don't care.
[/quote]

ITT: You can only be racist if you are white.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Vairocana' timestamp='1335665574' post='5928012']
ITT: You can only be racist if you are white.
[/quote]
Never said that it wasn't racism. I simply said I love it as it is quite hilarious. Mostly because his picture makes him look funny.

[Dark]

I'm going to make a really concise comment here, just because it's something none of you have addressed so far.

Zimmerman was able to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin, "escape" arrest for over two months, and [i]now[/i] is being charged for second-degree murder. The Stand Your Ground law basically says that you can shoot someone and kill them, claim that it was in self-defense, and because the only other witness is dead you are allowed to leave with your false innocence.

The law isn't protecting him now, but it definitely was for the past two months. If the law was properly implemented - for example, if Zimmerman was arrested on-the-spot until he was able to definitively prove that he, in fact, shot Trayvon in self-defense - then there isn't a problem with it, but the fact that this case perfectly demonstrates how the law can be easily abused gives credit to those who want it abolished entirely.

And to those who say this isn't a race case, I disagree. Perhaps it isn't a race case with Zimmerman, but the Florida police came on the scene, failed to arrest Zimmerman, failed to give Zimmerman a toxicology test, and basically handled the situation as if Trayvon was guilty because of the fact that he is black.

There needs to be a serious rewording of this law, clearly. There are two extremes which need to be avoided. The first extreme is how the law currently is, because it's able to be abused as it was in this case. The other extreme is that, if I'm being robbed in a public place and hit the robber in the face and break his nose, I could be charged with assault. If you take out the clause regarding lethal force, I think the Stand Your Ground law is perfect as is. But when you take into account killing someone, the law doesn't warrant its facets - to me, someone poking my stomach is lethal force. Does that give me grounds to kill them?

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1335675089' post='5928128']
I'm going to make a really concise comment here, just because it's something none of you have addressed so far.

Zimmerman was able to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin, "escape" arrest for over two months, and [i]now[/i] is being charged for second-degree murder. The Stand Your Ground law basically says that you can shoot someone and kill them, claim that it was in self-defense, and because the only other witness is dead you are allowed to leave with your false innocence.

The law isn't protecting him now, but it definitely was for the past two months. If the law was properly implemented - for example, if Zimmerman was arrested on-the-spot until he was able to definitively prove that he, in fact, shot Trayvon in self-defense - then there isn't a problem with it, but the fact that this case perfectly demonstrates how the law can be easily abused gives credit to those who want it abolished entirely.

And to those who say this isn't a race case, I disagree. Perhaps it isn't a race case with Zimmerman, but the Florida police came on the scene, failed to arrest Zimmerman, failed to give Zimmerman a toxicology test, and basically handled the situation as if Trayvon was guilty because of the fact that he is black.

There needs to be a serious rewording of this law, clearly. There are two extremes which need to be avoided. The first extreme is how the law currently is, because it's able to be abused as it was in this case. The other extreme is that, if I'm being robbed in a public place and hit the robber in the face and break his nose, I could be charged with assault. If you take out the clause regarding lethal force, I think the Stand Your Ground law is perfect as is. But when you take into account killing someone, the law doesn't warrant its facets - to me, someone poking my stomach is lethal force. Does that give me grounds to kill them?
[/quote]
That is true, the Stand Your Ground Law is not very concise. Other than a couple parts in your posts I am wondering how you thinkg that law should be edited? I mean if I guy gets attacked by someone in a deserted alley and the man kills the attacker in self defense, but he cannot prove it, does that mean he goes to jail for murder?

[Dark]

There are a few facets to this law that have to be accounted for. Self-defense is fine, and I'm in total support of it - I don't believe that if you are hit with a baseball bat you should attempt to run away, and I definitely don't believe that you should just stand there and wait for help to arrive. If you want to take some action and defend yourself, more power to you.

There exists a problem when you allow lethal force to be used, however. Florida law dictates that, in order to use lethal force, you must feel as if the attacker is threatening your life. Reverting to my previous example, poking my stomach - at least to me - is lethal force. But why should that give me any grounds to kill you?

Because self-defense is an affirmative position to take, there is an easy solution to this law. If someone were to kill another in "self-defense", it would be totally and wholly up to them to prove that it truly was in self-defense. And, if it was in a deserted alley and the person cannot actually prove anything, unfortunately they'd end up in jail. Sure, false positives suck, but they are unavoidable. It seems equally as irrational to say that anyone claiming self-defense is automatically innocent.

The reason that there is such a problem is because [i]I[/i] can go around to dark alleys and shoot people and claim it was in self-defense, can't I? And unless I'm forced to prove it lest I go to jail, I can kill as many people as I want before people start to question anything.

I think the best thing, however, is to educate people how to defend themselves without using lethal force. If Zimmerman really felt threatened, he could have shot Trayvon in his leg, or even sat on Trayvon for that matter. There are so many things that Zimmerman could have done to save both himself and save Trayvon, and if Trayvon really was the aggressor, it would probably have been better to keep him alive. Here, Zimmerman took part in a heat-of-the-moment murder, and it's stupid that he was able to roam free for two months with no evidence supporting him.

[Tentacruel]

Totally agree Dark, but it still seems unfortunate that people have to face jail for defending themselves in situations where there were there is no witnesses. Most attacks do take place in areas like dark alleys after all. (Or maybe not, I'm not entirely sure.) I guess it's a lose-lose situation.


Personally, I think Zimmerman didn't just have no evidence for him, he had evidence against him. He didn't stand his ground, he instigated a conflict.