Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Justice System Did NOT Fail, It Worked

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those who decry that the Justice System has failed can't name any reason why it failed. That's because it didn't, it succeeded and the verdict is a testament to our freedom.

In America, innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As Benjamin Franklin said, better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person should suffer. Maybe George Zimmerman is guilty of murder, or more likely manslaughter, but he is found not guilty because the evidence couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

A possibly guilty George Zimmerman set free is the price we have to pay so that the truly innocent don't get locked up or executed.

The ignorant pea brains who are protesting and smashing windows simply exhault the highest degree of stupidity and selective outrage. I want blacks to maintain an image that is respectable and equal to everyone else, but they are doing themselves no favors by reacting like this. Go write an essay, go give an intellectual discourse in front of a crowd, go do something to improve yourself so that your own merits shatter stereotypes. Al Sharpton's race baiting has set back race relations 50 years, that's not progress.

If the Justice System was racist then why does Snoop Dogg never get locked up? Because he pays them off. If it was racist, they would say "Snoop Dogg, your money is no good here, get in the cage."

Where were the riots when OJ Simpson murdered a white woman? I didn't see white people or black people rioting for that verdict.

All of this outrage is pure and utter bullish!t, how about some outrage and protests over the Obama administration scandals of spying, drones, NDAA, IRS, Syria, or even the legitimate concerns of the prison-industrial-complex and the racist drug war.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:02:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Those who decry that the Justice System has failed can't name any reason why it failed. That's because it didn't, it succeeded and the verdict is a testament to our freedom.

In America, innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As Benjamin Franklin said, better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person should suffer. Maybe George Zimmerman is guilty of murder, or more likely manslaughter, but he is found not guilty because the evidence couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

A possibly guilty George Zimmerman set free is the price we have to pay so that the truly innocent don't get locked up or executed.

The ignorant pea brains who are protesting and smashing windows simply exhault the highest degree of stupidity and selective outrage. I want blacks to maintain an image that is respectable and equal to everyone else, but they are doing themselves no favors by reacting like this. Go write an essay, go give an intellectual discourse in front of a crowd, go do something to improve yourself so that your own merits shatter stereotypes. Al Sharpton's race baiting has set back race relations 50 years, that's not progress.

If the Justice System was racist then why does Snoop Dogg never get locked up? Because he pays them off. If it was racist, they would say "Snoop Dogg, your money is no good here, get in the cage."

Where were the riots when OJ Simpson murdered a white woman? I didn't see white people or black people rioting for that verdict.

All of this outrage is pure and utter bullish!t, how about some outrage and protests over the Obama administration scandals of spying, drones, NDAA, IRS, Syria, or even the legitimate concerns of the prison-industrial-complex and the racist drug war.

This
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually agree with something Geo said. I think it particularly abhorable that state officials are calling this a mistake.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Justice Department facilitated anti-Zimmerman protests
http://dailycaller.com...

Obama calls for peace after Zimmerman verdict
http://www.sltrib.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:26:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I actually agree with something Geo said. I think it particularly abhorable that state officials are calling this a mistake.

Agree with ^.

I think the main problem with the Zimmerman case is that it's extremely difficult to substantiate even involuntary manslaughter.

Wrongful death however...that does look quite plausible. The evidence is still weak, because the most pertinent source of evidence of the actual altercation is now dead, Trayvon Martin.

There is still this nagging feeling that Zimmerman did something wrong...exactly what can be proved however is difficult to determine.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:55:19 PM, tulle wrote:
Unlike OJ, he admitted to killing the kid...

You hate self-defense, you believe deadly force can never be used to defend oneself or family. You support total gun ban. You believe in total victimization of innocent people.

"But Geo, isn't that a strawman? How can you say that." She just admitted that killing is never justified.

Newsflash: Not all killing is equivalent to murder.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:09:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 2:55:19 PM, tulle wrote:
Unlike OJ, he admitted to killing the kid...

You hate self-defense, you believe deadly force can never be used to defend oneself or family. You support total gun ban. You believe in total victimization of innocent people.

"But Geo, isn't that a strawman? How can you say that." She just admitted that killing is never justified.

Newsflash: Not all killing is equivalent to murder.

Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.
#BlackLivesMatter
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lol @agentorange, I came to the realization a long time ago Geo probably has schizotypal personality disorder so im not even going to bother.
yang.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:49:03 PM, tulle wrote:
Lol @agentorange, I came to the realization a long time ago Geo probably has schizotypal personality disorder so im not even going to bother.

The "probably" in your sentence seems optimistic.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't... However, it is not a warrant for claiming violent actions as self-defense in the UK, and I imagine the same is true in America.
However, Zimmerman's behaviour could not be legitimate described as stalking as there was no repeated component, nor egregious harassment.

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.
#BlackLivesMatter
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:38:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:21:53 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't... However, it is not a warrant for claiming violent actions as self-defense in the UK, and I imagine the same is true in America.
However, Zimmerman's behaviour could not be legitimate described as stalking as there was no repeated component, nor egregious harassment.

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Think about what you're saying. What precedence your setting. He wasn't just walking the same direction as Trayvon. WE know he followed him. WE know Trayvon noticed him and started running away. And we know that Zimmerman followed him. Are you saying that it should be ok to chase someone the f*ck down? Like they're some animal. He had zero proof of wrong doing. He had zero legal reason to make a citizens arrest. Can I now chase women around and kill them if they confront me?

Chasing someone is an act of f*cking aggression.
#BlackLivesMatter
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

BTW, stuff like this is equally moronic. Many crimes are little more than the aggregation of otherwise independently legal acts.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:52:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:38:00 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:21:53 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't... However, it is not a warrant for claiming violent actions as self-defense in the UK, and I imagine the same is true in America.
However, Zimmerman's behaviour could not be legitimate described as stalking as there was no repeated component, nor egregious harassment.

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Think about what you're saying. What precedence your setting. He wasn't just walking the same direction as Trayvon. WE know he followed him.
WE know Trayvon noticed him and started running away. And we know that Zimmerman followed him. Are you saying that it should be ok to chase someone the f*ck down?

The crucial point is when TM stopped running. If he struck first, he is legally at fault. If when TM stopped and Z ran at him until contact was made, Z is at fault.
There is already vast amount of precedent for that to be the legal interpretation under UK law and I would be astounded if that case had not occurred in the US.
I have not heard evidence for the latter scenario(that Zimmerman was running at TM). However, even if that were the case, that does not disagree with anything I said. I said that stalking is a crime but not one which justifies a violent reaction self-defense. This is factual in UK law and very probably in US law. Furthermore, what Zimmerman did could not be described as stalking (the crime).


Chasing someone is an act of f*cking aggression.

Not legally.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 5:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:52:27 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:38:00 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:21:53 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't... However, it is not a warrant for claiming violent actions as self-defense in the UK, and I imagine the same is true in America.
However, Zimmerman's behaviour could not be legitimate described as stalking as there was no repeated component, nor egregious harassment.

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Think about what you're saying. What precedence your setting. He wasn't just walking the same direction as Trayvon. WE know he followed him.
WE know Trayvon noticed him and started running away. And we know that Zimmerman followed him. Are you saying that it should be ok to chase someone the f*ck down?

The crucial point is when TM stopped running. If he struck first, he is legally at fault. If when TM stopped and Z ran at him until contact was made, Z is at fault.
Are you suggesting that Trayvon went searching for the man he was just running away from.
There is already vast amount of precedent for that to be the legal interpretation under UK law and I would be astounded if that case had not occurred in the US.
UK law is not US law. We do stuff differently in the New World.
I have not heard evidence for the latter scenario(that Zimmerman was running at TM). However, even if that were the case, that does not disagree with anything I said. I said that stalking is a crime but not one which justifies a violent reaction self-defense. This is factual in UK law and very probably in US law. Furthermore, what Zimmerman did could not be described as stalking (the crime).
You can look it up. He chased him. While on the phone and even said that he lost him which means he was searching for him.


Chasing someone is an act of f*cking aggression.

Not legally.

Yes it is. Its a threat. Answer me this, why did Trayvon beat the crap out of Zimmerman?
#BlackLivesMatter
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 5:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:02:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Those who decry that the Justice System has failed can't name any reason why it failed. That's because it didn't, it succeeded and the verdict is a testament to our freedom.

In America, innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As Benjamin Franklin said, better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person should suffer. Maybe George Zimmerman is guilty of murder, or more likely manslaughter, but he is found not guilty because the evidence couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

A possibly guilty George Zimmerman set free is the price we have to pay so that the truly innocent don't get locked up or executed.

The ignorant pea brains who are protesting and smashing windows simply exhault the highest degree of stupidity and selective outrage. I want blacks to maintain an image that is respectable and equal to everyone else, but they are doing themselves no favors by reacting like this. Go write an essay, go give an intellectual discourse in front of a crowd, go do something to improve yourself so that your own merits shatter stereotypes. Al Sharpton's race baiting has set back race relations 50 years, that's not progress.

If the Justice System was racist then why does Snoop Dogg never get locked up? Because he pays them off. If it was racist, they would say "Snoop Dogg, your money is no good here, get in the cage."

Where were the riots when OJ Simpson murdered a white woman? I didn't see white people or black people rioting for that verdict.

All of this outrage is pure and utter bullish!t, how about some outrage and protests over the Obama administration scandals of spying, drones, NDAA, IRS, Syria, or even the legitimate concerns of the prison-industrial-complex and the racist drug war.

Zimmerman admitted to killing him. That puts the burden of proof on HIM to prove that what he did was self-defense. I can't just kill someone off the street, claim it was self-defense, and expect the prosecution to have the burden of proof. That's how affirmative defense works - if you are admitting to the crime and stating that it was okay for whatever reason, it is YOUR job to prove that.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:29:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.

What constitutes stalking and how can this(these) be proven?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:16:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:52:14 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:49:03 PM, tulle wrote:
Lol @agentorange, I came to the realization a long time ago Geo probably has schizotypal personality disorder so im not even going to bother.

The "probably" in your sentence seems optimistic.

I thought that was proven o_O
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.

What constitutes stalking and how can this(these) be proven?

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to"

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:47:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:38:58 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.

What constitutes stalking and how can this(these) be proven?

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to"

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

I question whether or not it's just to phrase laws in a way that's so open to interpretation that there could be inconsistencies between its applications. But, needless to say, that doesn't tell me anything concrete about what it means to stalk. Following someone does not in itself cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, nor suffer substantial emotional distress. Assumptions about the possible actions that could ensue from that following may cause fear, but not the following by itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:47:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:38:58 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.

What constitutes stalking and how can this(these) be proven?

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to"

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

I question whether or not it's just to phrase laws in a way that's so open to interpretation that there could be inconsistencies between its applications. But, needless to say, that doesn't tell me anything concrete about what it means to stalk. Following someone does not in itself cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, nor suffer substantial emotional distress. Assumptions about the possible actions that could ensue from that following may cause fear, but not the following by itself.

Following someone absolutely causes them to fear for their safety, especially when you chase someone. How the hell can you say what someone else feels in a certain situation?
#BlackLivesMatter
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:34:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:38:58 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to"

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

Following someone absolutely causes them to fear for their safety, especially when you chase someone. How the hell can you say what someone else feels in a certain situation?

I'm going to quote this in a separate discussion I'm having in a different thread. Thanks.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 5:26:32 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:52:27 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:38:00 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:21:53 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't... However, it is not a warrant for claiming violent actions as self-defense in the UK, and I imagine the same is true in America.
However, Zimmerman's behaviour could not be legitimate described as stalking as there was no repeated component, nor egregious harassment.

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Think about what you're saying. What precedence your setting. He wasn't just walking the same direction as Trayvon. WE know he followed him.
WE know Trayvon noticed him and started running away. And we know that Zimmerman followed him. Are you saying that it should be ok to chase someone the f*ck down?

The crucial point is when TM stopped running. If he struck first, he is legally at fault. If when TM stopped and Z ran at him until contact was made, Z is at fault.
Are you suggesting that Trayvon went searching for the man he was just running away from.
There is already vast amount of precedent for that to be the legal interpretation under UK law and I would be astounded if that case had not occurred in the US.
UK law is not US law. We do stuff differently in the New World.
I have not heard evidence for the latter scenario(that Zimmerman was running at TM). However, even if that were the case, that does not disagree with anything I said. I said that stalking is a crime but not one which justifies a violent reaction self-defense. This is factual in UK law and very probably in US law. Furthermore, what Zimmerman did could not be described as stalking (the crime).
You can look it up. He chased him. While on the phone and even said that he lost him which means he was searching for him.


Chasing someone is an act of f*cking aggression.

Not legally.

Yes it is. Its a threat. Answer me this, why did Trayvon beat the crap out of Zimmerman?

I wholly agree with Agent_Orange. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:44:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:47:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:38:58 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:31:37 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:11:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:22:40 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Yes but all fighting is equivalent to assault. I don't care what you do, you follow me, you stalk me, and I don't know who you are, I'm going to take that as a threat on my life. Trayvon Martin was defending himself. Not his fault Zimmerman wannabe cop @ss was out of shape.

Walking the same direction as someone else: LEGAL

Walking behind someone: LEGAL

Following someone: LEGAL

Stalking someone: LEGAL

Throwing the first punch: Aggravated assault

Stalking someone is not legal.

What constitutes stalking and how can this(these) be proven?

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to"

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

I question whether or not it's just to phrase laws in a way that's so open to interpretation that there could be inconsistencies between its applications. But, needless to say, that doesn't tell me anything concrete about what it means to stalk. Following someone does not in itself cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, nor suffer substantial emotional distress. Assumptions about the possible actions that could ensue from that following may cause fear, but not the following by itself.

Following someone absolutely causes them to fear for their safety, especially when you chase someone. How the hell can you say what someone else feels in a certain situation?

Aren't you the one assuming that most people being followed would feel fear? All you've done is corroborate my claim that the law is allows room for baseless speculation and therefore can't possibly be applied consistently among all cases that involve it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:48:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

Aren't you the one assuming that most people being followed would feel fear? All you've done is corroborate my claim that the law is allows room for baseless speculation and therefore can't possibly be applied consistently among all cases that involve it.

I agree with this, except that the speculation cannot be baseless. Some laws are designed so that the decision differs based upon the discretion of the courts. It allows for flexibility and precedence to determine the finer aspects of justifiable legislation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:48:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

I agree with this, except that the speculation cannot be baseless.

Change this to

I agree with this, except that it cannot be based upon speculation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:55:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:48:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:52:10 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

Aren't you the one assuming that most people being followed would feel fear? All you've done is corroborate my claim that the law is allows room for baseless speculation and therefore can't possibly be applied consistently among all cases that involve it.

I agree with this, except that the speculation cannot be baseless. Some laws are designed so that the decision differs based upon the discretion of the courts. It allows for flexibility and precedence to determine the finer aspects of justifiable legislation.

Flexibility and consistency are different things. It's one thing to construct a law that can be applied to a broad range of cases and prevents the guilty from escaping on technical grounds but a whole other thing to have a law that's entirely subject to individual whims and legally unguided opinions. What is a "reasonable person" exactly?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:02:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Those who decry that the Justice System has failed can name any reason why it failed. That's because it has here, it sucks and the verdict is a testament to our freedom.

In America, innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As Benjamin Franklin said, better that 100 guilty persons en-caged than that one guilty person should escape. Maybe George Zimmerman is guilty of murder, or more likely manslaughter, but he is found not guilty because the evidence could prove beyond reasonable doubt. Instead he just sucked off the jury.

A possibly guilty George Zimmerman set free is the price we have to pay so that the truly guilty don't get locked up or executed. (Case Anthony anyone?)

The ignorant pea brains who are protesting and smashing Treyvon simply exhault the highest degree of stupidity and selective outrage. I want blacks to maintain an image that is respectable and equal to everyone else, but they are doing themselves favors by reacting like this. Go write an essay, go give an intellectual discourse in front of a crowd, go do something to improve yourself so that your own merits shatter stereotypes. Al Sharpton's passionate statements has progressed race relations 50 years, that's progress.

If the Justice System was racist then why does Snoop Dogg keep giving it to me up my @$$? Because he pays me off. If it was racist, I would say "Snoop Dogg, your money is no good here, get in the cage you naughty dogg!" ;)

This outrage is pure and utter bullish!t, how about some outrage and protests over the republican scandals of defamation, lying, twisting, gun-toting, or even the legitimate concerns of the tea party idiots fvcking up america and the racist drug war Republicans launch!

fixed .. you're welcome Geo! ;)
Thank you for voting!