Black lives matter

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
Yeah Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy, not a police officer, that was following a guy wearing a hood through a gated community, so he decided to follow said hooded figure to see if he was up to no good. Then said hooded figure felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, confronted Zimmerman, pounded the crap out of Zimmerman’s face, and Zimmerman then shot him.
That's a basic summary, yes. Less to do with race, more to do with the vigilante nature of crime fighting.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
Good. If true, the delivery driver can now sue the pants off the home owner for unlawful detention. Driver wins for being patient & non-confrontational. Homeowner loses for being a dickwad.
They're fine as along as they stay in their place and don't challenge the white men, right? :rolleyes:
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
Not so easy. I haven’t researched this in depth, are you allowed as a citizen to detain another on suspicion of trespassing in a home that isn’t yours?
No. Especially when the home owner never reported any crime.
 

Goldteam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,056
Reaction score
597
Points
113
The law says they could have guns, but they shouldn't have.

I guess I was indeed boxed.
 

mjfelton15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
588
Points
113
That's a basic summary, yes. Less to do with race, more to do with the vigilante nature of crime fighting.
Agreed. And Zimmerman was a douchebag, I get why he followed and all. But definitely a douchebag
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
There's only one thing that is a problem for you: I'm confident you will be proven wrong. You are correct that there's nuance about citizen's arrest that are archaic and vigilante-supporting. Your purposely provocative statements aren't going to cover you this time though.
Don't shoot the messenger. Most people heard the initial narrative of "Innocent Black jogger killed by racist White vigilantes", internalized it with facts & invested in that narrative on an emotional level. No matter how many facts come out, no matter what the law says, they can not admit they jumped the gun at this point due to the investment they have in the case.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
They're fine as along as they stay in their place and don't challenge the white men, right? :rolleyes:
I didn't invent the rainy day, I'm just telling you what the best umbrella is.

If true, the situation shouldn't have happened & the way you change the system is by suing the guy so badly that others like him have to think twice moving forward.

The driver appears to have had the choice to stay calm, stay put & sue the crap out of that dickwad if he was illegally detained, or get out of that car & confront the dickwad with a gun.

In one scenario the driver comes away alive & likely with a sizable chunk of change. In the other the driver likely comes away dead, or having killed someone himself.

The choice is simple.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
Gee, what does the other party say?
It doesn't matter what the other party says. Again, the only thing that matters is, is it reasonable to believe McMichael feared for his life as he was being punched in the face, & had what a suspected criminal trying to take his gun from him?

Go ahead and be frustrated. It's a frustrating case. I'm not advocating for violence against Black people. I'm not cheer leading for the McMichaels.

I'll ask you the same question others have avoided answering: If McMichael didn't break the law, do you want to see him imprisoned anyway?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,319
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
Yep, lots and lots of $$$ coming soon to the black guy who was illegally detained for an hour by a hillbilly white guy. Definitely worth the huge lawyer fees, on that one.

Fake news, once again.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,319
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
Using CRG's logic in #433, any criminal can claim they feared for their lives if someone tries to fight back and kill the person.

Absurdly, patently fake and false. You initiate aggression/confrontation = you forfeit the right to stand your ground. Plain as day.


And this isn't hypothetical, this is already built into those laws!
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,817
Reaction score
416
Points
83
[
Yep, lots and lots of $$$ coming soon to the black guy who was illegally detained for an hour by a hillbilly white guy. Definitely worth the huge lawyer fees, on that one.

Fake news, once again.
An attorney could be found to do it pro bono or on a contingency.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,319
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
An attorney could be found to do it pro bono or on a contingency.
Pro bono means, they'll settle it as fast as humanly possible and take a big slice of the settlement.

But sure, that is something more than zero. Guessing the white guy himself has no money. Maybe they can sue the place or its insurance company? No idea.
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Again, the only thing that matters is, is it reasonable to believe McMichael feared for his life as he was being punched in the face, & had what a suspected criminal trying to take his gun from him?
I forget which network it was on over the weekend but it was pointed out, fairly: When you're struggling for a gun it essentially does not belong to anyone. It goes from 'his gun' to 'the gun'. As such when you're struggling for the gun, everyone's life is threatened and the self defense approach is justified. That apparently will be the likely argument in court.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,287
Reaction score
350
Points
83
Pro bono means, they'll settle it as fast as humanly possible and take a big slice of the settlement.

But sure, that is something more than zero. Guessing the white guy himself has no money. Maybe they can sue the place or its insurance company? No idea.
Yes, if either of those guys had homeowners insurance- the insurer(s) will likely pay their liability limits; typically 300k-1M. The risk would be too great to litigate.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,319
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
Yes, if either of those guys had homeowners insurance- the insurer(s) will likely pay their liability limits; typically 300k-1M. The risk would be too great to litigate.
Right and so, who gets "taught" a lesson, then? Will the guy even lose his job? Maybe. But he'll probably tell anyone who listens that he "went down doing what I thought was right" and that he was unfairly targeted and fired, blah blah blah. And lots of people will believe him and side with him.

Nothing will change from this, even if there is a settlement.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
It doesn't matter what the other party says. Again, the only thing that matters is, is it reasonable to believe McMichael feared for his life as he was being punched in the face, & had what a suspected criminal trying to take his gun from him?

Go ahead and be frustrated. It's a frustrating case. I'm not advocating for violence against Black people. I'm not cheer leading for the McMichaels.

I'll ask you the same question others have avoided answering: If McMichael didn't break the law, do you want to see him imprisoned anyway?
He did break the law. He didn't witness a felony. The video cameras from that construction site show dozens of people "trespassing" on it in the days leading up to this. The owners never reported a crime. The idea that two rednecks can go grab their guns and hunt a guy down as long as they "thought" he was committing a crime is absurd.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,319
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
He did break the law. He didn't witness a felony. The video cameras from that construction site show dozens of people "trespassing" on it in the days leading up to this. The owners never reported a crime. The idea that two rednecks can go grab their guns and hunt a guy down as long as they "thought" he was committing a crime is absurd.
The whole stupid thing just comes back down to the romanticism of the armed vigilante who stops a bad guy.

The odds of an armed citizen being able to "stop" a felony criminal are astronomically small. Far greater odds that you'll do more harm than good, at least to yourself, at worst to innocent others.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
The whole stupid thing just comes back down to the romanticism of the armed vigilante who stops a bad guy.

The odds of an armed citizen being able to "stop" a felony criminal are astronomically small. Far greater odds that you'll do more harm than good, at least to yourself, at worst to innocent others.
But many of the Fellas dream of it and will twist in pretzels to defend those who carry it out.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
I forget which network it was on over the weekend but it was pointed out, fairly: When you're struggling for a gun it essentially does not belong to anyone. It goes from 'his gun' to 'the gun'. As such when you're struggling for the gun, everyone's life is threatened and the self defense approach is justified. That apparently will be the likely argument in court.
In this case "his gun" or "the gun" are the same thing. It is interesting to think that you could try to disarm a cop and then claim you were struggling for "the gun", not "his gun", but that's a different conversation.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
He did break the law. He didn't witness a felony. The video cameras from that construction site show dozens of people "trespassing" on it in the days leading up to this. The owners never reported a crime. The idea that two rednecks can go grab their guns and hunt a guy down as long as they "thought" he was committing a crime is absurd.
Let's just say you're right for the sake of argument. It still has nothing to do with the self defense portion of the shooting. What you seem to be saying is McMichael should be charged with unlawful detention? Would that outcome satisfy you?
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
48
Points
48
In this case "his gun" or "the gun" are the same thing.
I guess I'm not sure the perspective you're speaking from. The gun may belong to someone, but the distinction was being made when two people are struggling over a gun ownership is mute. It then becomes anyone's gun that anyone could be killed with thus the 'self defense' defense is much more viable.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
I'm also curious why no one will answer the question I keep asking: If McMichael broke no law, should be convicted of a crime anyhow? Is that what people would like to see happen?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
I guess I'm not sure the perspective you're speaking from. The gun may belong to someone, but the distinction was being made when two people are struggling over a gun ownership is mute. It then becomes anyone's gun that anyone could be killed with thus the 'self defense' defense is much more viable.
How does that apply if a cop has his gun drawn on a suspect?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
21,453
Reaction score
706
Points
113
I guess I'm not sure the perspective you're speaking from. The gun may belong to someone, but the distinction was being made when two people are struggling over a gun ownership is mute. It then becomes anyone's gun that anyone could be killed with thus the 'self defense' defense is much more viable.
Not good news then for the people who want McMichael to be charged with murder.
 
Top Bottom