Stand your ground

[madhusudan]

while I agree with this, it is equally ill mannered to be intrusive and nosy.

True, but one can encounter ill manners without descending to the same level.

It's a matter of desire, maturity, commitment and practice. And even then we make more mistakes than we dare to count. So, the way I see it is, without impugning the young man's character, there is room for improvement in his response, at least in the way the story was related.

Since we all have room for improvement, he is a member of an illustrious club.

[Syn7]

Would love to see ACTUAL POLICE record with these on there. Cause I know for a fact, getting a concealed weapons license is near impossible with these charges on your record. Me thinks you are getting this info from biased sources.

Nope. I was making a point about context. The felonies were dropped to misdemeanors.
But this is my point. Context matters. How many times had TM gone to court? Aside from being tried at his own murder trial, that is?

[Syn7]

True, but one can encounter ill manners without descending to the same level.

It's a matter of desire, maturity, commitment and practice. And even then we make more mistakes than we dare to count. So, the way I see it is, without impugning the young man's character, there is room for improvement in his response, at least in the way the story was related.

Since we all have room for improvement, he is a member of an illustrious club.

We will never know what happened. If you take GZ's assertions out of the picture, one could just as easily assume that GZ tried to "secure" TM and got whooped for his efforts. What would you do if you were out at night and some creepy dude was trying to put hands on you? Regardless of the words coming from his mouth, my posture would be far more than just defensive.

[madhusudan]

We will never know what happened. If you take GZ's assertions out of the picture, one could just as easily assume that GZ tried to "secure" TM and got whooped for his efforts. What would you do if you were out at night and some creepy dude was trying to put hands on you? Regardless of the words coming from his mouth, my posture would be far more than just defensive.

That post was in relation to the 'opening the gym' situation posted much earlier in the thread. My bad if that wasn't clear.

As far as the GZ/TM case, my take is GZ was wrong for 'stalking' and TM was wrong to attack first. It is a tragedy, and the more so because of how it has been exploited.

With the understanding that Wikipedia is what it is, here's its page on manslaughter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

According to that page, I could possibly see it as 'constructive manslaughter' with the criminal act on GZ's part being stalking (but, then, I don't really know the legal definition of stalking either.) I don't see how the case falls into the other definitions of manslaughter, much less murder.

I also see the case from GZ's perspective of getting his head bashed on the concrete, however. This, of course, assumes that what he has related is the truth.

[Yum Cha]

while I agree with this, it is equally ill mannered to be intrusive and nosy.

Funny the take on this. Man, I love it when my neighbour looks after my place, and I have done the same in return. Has community collapsed to the point where its 'nosy' to look after your neighbour? I mean NY is legendary for its a-holes, a matter of pride indeed, but hey, if David's dude had introduced himself, thanked the neighbour for his concern and made an acquaintance, would he loose his NY creds? Be deemed weak, and immediately eaten by wolves?

Of course, in NY, maybe the neighbour is just jealous because he was casing the joint...

[Syn7]

I don't see anything wrong with protecting person or property of those who are unable or absent. But come on... there is a balance here. There is a line between good citizen and douchbag interloper.

[Syn7]

That post was in relation to the 'opening the gym' situation posted much earlier in the thread. My bad if that wasn't clear.

As far as the GZ/TM case, my take is GZ was wrong for 'stalking' and TM was wrong to attack first. It is a tragedy, and the more so because of how it has been exploited.

With the understanding that Wikipedia is what it is, here's its page on manslaughter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

According to that page, I could possibly see it as 'constructive manslaughter' with the criminal act on GZ's part being stalking (but, then, I don't really know the legal definition of stalking either.) I don't see how the case falls into the other definitions of manslaughter, much less murder.

I also see the case from GZ's perspective of getting his head bashed on the concrete, however. This, of course, assumes that what he has related is the truth.

Sorry, my bad.

About manslaughter. By any REASONABLE definition, this was a clear case of manslaughter, not murder. Either way, guilty. I would have thrown 8 to 12 at him in a flash. And this is assuming GZ was honest about the timeline. If he did try to secure TM, then we get into a grey area between manslaughter and murder. If you put hands on me, I defend myself and you shoot me, that is murder.

The civil trial should be fun. All they have to do is prove he was responsible for the death, at least as far as I know. That's a no brainer. I hope they soak his ass.

[Yum Cha]

I don't see anything wrong with protecting person or property of those who are unable or absent. But come on... there is a balance here. There is a line between good citizen and douchbag interloper.

One thing we learned from the Zimmerman trial, pays to be polite to strangers, even if you are right.

[Syn7]

One thing we learned from the Zimmerman trial, pays to be polite to strangers, even if you are right.

Yeah, sure. But when some dude with NO authority puts his hands on you, you have every right to do what you have to do to prevent yourself from being victimized. I'm sure many times when a man tries to rape somebody, he fronts like he has some sort of authority. Let's pretend TM was female, do we still feel the same way? Creepy dude puts his hands on her when she knows that she has done nothing wrong and has no reason to believe he has good intentions? Whether he had good intentions or not is besides the point.

So in this particular case, yes TM would have been better off had he simply submitted to being profiled and having his rights abused, but usually that isn't the case. I wouldn't blame anyone for being alarmed under these circumstances. If anyone had the right to feel threatened here, it was TM.

[Yum Cha]

Yeah, sure. But when some dude with NO authority puts his hands on you, you have every right to do what you have to do to prevent yourself from being victimized. I'm sure many times when a man tries to rape somebody, he fronts like he has some sort of authority. Let's pretend TM was female, do we still feel the same way? Creepy dude puts his hands on her when she knows that she has done nothing wrong and has no reason to believe he has good intentions? Whether he had good intentions or not is besides the point.

So in this particular case, yes TM would have been better off had he simply submitted to being profiled and having his rights abused, but usually that isn't the case. I wouldn't blame anyone for being alarmed under these circumstances. If anyone had the right to feel threatened here, it was TM.

I was talking about David's case. of the guy fumbling for keys outside the gym door...

[Syn7]

I was talking about David's case. of the guy fumbling for keys outside the gym door...

Ha. This time I did know that.
It was in response to this:

One thing we learned from the Zimmerman trial, pays to be polite to strangers, even if you are right.

I chose to bring it full circle.

[lance]

This seems to be rather topical these days. I know we have American, Canadian, English and Australian folks here, we all live under the principles of English Common Law, and how its evolved in each country.

In Australia, the principle of self defence is that you can appropriate force to stop the attack, but you can't continue on, pursue or otherwise beat the sh1t out of someone.
As soon as they cease their attack, you must too. You must be attacked first.
Its dumb. And often results in people who were the victims being charged. You have no special rights if the incident happens in your bedroom, or on the street.

Not sure, but the UK had a similar interpretation, until recently where they introduced some 'stand your ground' type language, where you were allowed to respond 'if you felt threatened' without having to wait to be attacked. That was in the news last year?

What is the situation in the states with this Florida 'stand your ground' law everybody is talking about? And I'm sure it applies to hand to hand as well as guns, in principle?

Every country has their own laws on self defense so people need to obey it .

[Ben Gash]

This seems to be rather topical these days. I know we have American, Canadian, English and Australian folks here, we all live under the principles of English Common Law, and how its evolved in each country.

In Australia, the principle of self defence is that you can appropriate force to stop the attack, but you can't continue on, pursue or otherwise beat the sh1t out of someone.
As soon as they cease their attack, you must too. You must be attacked first.
Its dumb. And often results in people who were the victims being charged. You have no special rights if the incident happens in your bedroom, or on the street.

Not sure, but the UK had a similar interpretation, until recently where they introduced some 'stand your ground' type language, where you were allowed to respond 'if you felt threatened' without having to wait to be attacked. That was in the news last year?

What is the situation in the states with this Florida 'stand your ground' law everybody is talking about? And I'm sure it applies to hand to hand as well as guns, in principle?

In UK law since the 60s you are able to use reasonable force in self defence.
Indeed the exact wording is
3. — (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Under this act you've always been able to use force against a perceived threat if it is reasonable to do so.

[bawang]

One thing we learned from the Zimmerman trial, pays to be polite to strangers, even if you are right.

you really think Zimmerman would have let trayvon live on that night?

[Syn7]

you really think Zimmerman would have let trayvon live on that night?

Had Trayvon simply allowed himself to be subjected to GZ's bull****? Absolutely I think he would have lived through it. I don't think GZ was out to kill anyone. I think he was just a wannabe who got in over his head and shot a kid. Manslaughter, straight up. Poster child for LARPer.

That being said, I can't blame anyone for engaging some random dude on the street who approaches in an aggressive manner. Had Trayvon grabbed the gun and shot GZ, he would be doing time. This we all know.