Florida, Florida, Florida

[mu_hilltopper]

My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds.  Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out.  Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood.  Martin is caught.  What happens next?

[lab_warrior]

My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds.  Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out.  Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood.  Martin is caught.  What happens next?

I'm sure he'd get what this woman got.  You know, because he can claim he was standing
his ground and defending himself, and the law is adjudicated the same for every race, creed,
and ethnicity in Florida.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

[Sunbelt15]

It may not be court-order and it may not be enough in some people's mind, but George Zimmerman is mostly definitely facing a "punishment" for his actions.

How?  And, is the punishment worthy of his actions?  Doubt it.

[Hards Alumni]

I'm sure he'd get what this woman got.  You know, because he can claim he was standing
his ground and defending himself, and the law is adjudicated the same for every race, creed,
and ethnicity in Florida.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Christ, not this story.  Get the facts before you post.

She left the argument, found a gun in the garage, then went back inside, fired the gun at the guy, and the bullet ricocheted.

Trying to pull of some mental gymnastics to make this an equivalent story is total BS.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds.  Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out.  Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood.  Martin is caught.  What happens next?

Well, that's tough.

I think it would really depend upon Martin's story.

Ironically, his story could be similar to Zimmerman's, could it?

"I was walking home from the store. A guy started following me. He didn't say anything, and I couldn't get away. I hid, and I thought I saw a gun. He didn't ID himself, and I had never seen him before. I didn't think I could make it home without being seen (he'd already followed me), so I hid and then attacked."

For the record, I don't think this is a particularly good excuse for what happened, but it would be interesting to hear what was going through TM's head.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, I'll defer to law enforcement professionals, who tell me that it's never a good idea to follow or engage a "suspect". Too many things can go wrong, especially with a firearm involved.

Observe. Report. Don't follow. Don't engage.

I don't expect the neighborhood watch to get into a gunfight and save me from a break-in and murder. That's just not realistic to me.

Person just died as a result when they could have been saved because of that inaction.

I totally get where you are coming from.  These are complex issues. 

I've put this scenario to people many times and I know exactly where I come down on that 10 times out of 10.

You're in a theatre in Colorado, all of a sudden some guy whips out an assault rifle and starts shooting up the place.  Do you hope someone in that theatre is carrying and concealing to give you that chance at survival or are you hoping that the police get there in the next 10 minutes and he hasn't killed you in that 10 minutes?

[ChicosBailBonds]

A new one, in New Orleans.  I mentioned a few pages ago about the Castle Doctrine, will be interesting to see where this one goes.

Shooter is white, kid is 14 and black.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html

Kid is out at 2:00am (WTF) and a "professional thief" as described by his older brother.  Homeowner shoots kid.  Castle Doctrine?   

Many more facts need to come out, but I'm guessing this might be part deux. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You're in a theatre in Colorado, all of a sudden some guy whips out an assault rifle and starts shooting up the place.  Do you hope someone in that theatre is carrying and concealing to give you that chance at survival or are you hoping that the police get there in the next 10 minutes and he hasn't killed you in that 10 minutes?

I'm not against conceal and carry, but we all need to understand that guns are instantaneous and the bullets can't be taken back. Mistakes will happen, and it will be tragic.

There are no free lunches.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not against conceal and carry, but we all need to understand that guns are instantaneous and the bullets can't be taken back. Mistakes will happen, and it will be tragic.

There are no free lunches.

We are in agreement...human beings involved, there will be mistakes.  There are a lot of people that are absolutely 100% against conceal and carry, and in that situation they are dead.  They believe in the tooth fairy, etc that strong gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals (you know, just like strong drug laws prevent drugs in this country    )

[forgetful]

A new one, in New Orleans.  I mentioned a few pages ago about the Castle Doctrine, will be interesting to see where this one goes.

Shooter is white, kid is 14 and black.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html

Kid is out at 2:00am (WTF) and a "professional thief" as described by his older brother.  Homeowner shoots kid.  Castle Doctrine?  

Many more facts need to come out, but I'm guessing this might be part deux.  

I'm completely for conceal and carry, but there is an extreme amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm.  Extreme responsibility requires extreme punishment if one makes a mistake.  Lives are on the line.  GZs actions cost a loss of life.  He deserves extreme punishment.

As for the case above, it is actually tougher than the GZ case.  Personally, I think the guy should go to jail for 2nd degree murder.  To some extent same reason as GZ.  He did not identify himself, he came out with a gun with the intention of shooting someone if they were there.  Alternatively, he could have yelled at the kid, turned on the light anything, he was looking to apprehend, which is not the common citizens domain.  

He shot an unarmed kid, whose only crime was perhaps trespassing.  Growing up we used to cut through peoples yards (sometimes even late at night)...kids pulling pranks (i.e. throwing someones phone over a fence)...lots of scenarios besides a crime.  Can't just shoot first and ask questions later.

I realize in this case that the kid was likely up to no good.  Still better to lose a worthless possession than to take a mans life. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Well, that's tough.

I think it would really depend upon Martin's story.

Ironically, his story could be similar to Zimmerman's, could it?

"I was walking home from the store. A guy started following me. He didn't say anything, and I couldn't get away. I hid, and I thought I saw a gun. He didn't ID himself, and I had never seen him before. I didn't think I could make it home without being seen (he'd already followed me), so I hid and then attacked."

That may indeed be his story. 

The end result would be .. the 911 caller GZ would be a victim, Martin would be booked for aggravated assault & battery.     There'd be rallies to take back our streets, a fund would be set up for Martin's medical bills, etc.

5 seconds different.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm completely for conceal and carry, but there is an extreme amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm.  Extreme responsibility requires extreme punishment if one makes a mistake.  Lives are on the line.  GZs actions cost a loss of life.  He deserves extreme punishment.

As for the case above, it is actually tougher than the GZ case.  Personally, I think the guy should go to jail for 2nd degree murder.  To some extent same reason as GZ.  He did not identify himself, he came out with a gun with the intention of shooting someone if they were there.  Alternatively, he could have yelled at the kid, turned on the light anything, he was looking to apprehend, which is not the common citizens domain.  

He shot an unarmed kid, whose only crime was perhaps trespassing.  Growing up we used to cut through peoples yards (sometimes even late at night)...kids pulling pranks (i.e. throwing someones phone over a fence)...lots of scenarios besides a crime.  Can't just shoot first and ask questions later.

I realize in this case that the kid was likely up to no good.  Still better to lose a worthless possession than to take a mans life. 

GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life.  He defended himself, an action he would not have had to take if he wasn't getting his head bashed in. 

On this second case, there are laws for this.  We'll see how this goes and if the Castle Doctrine applies.  At what point are you allowed to defend your property and who gets define "worthless possession"?

[Lennys Tap]

GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life. 

They most certainly did. If GZ does what he was told to do (return to his car, don't pursue) the kid is alive today.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They most certainly did. If GZ does what he was told to do (return to his car, don't pursue) the kid is alive today.

If TM doesn't pound GZ's head into the ground, TM is alive today even though GZ didn't return to the car.  It took more than the action of GZ being there to cost TM his life.  Two separate incidents...linked, of course.  But the second action had to happen as well.  Without the pounding of the head, TM is alive today.

Otherwise, we can play this game forever.  If TM isn't out late at night in the rain buying skittles and Arizona drink to make some Lean, he's alive today.  If there weren't burglaries for the past few months committed by young black males, GZ isn't following TM because he isn't suspicious...thus alive today.  Etc, etc, etc.

[nyg]

I have been reading this thread over the past week or so and it has been pretty interesting with the thoughts of each poster and reactions to not only the verdict, but to each person's perception as to what predicated the event.  As a former homicide investigator who has seen his share of crime scenes, I was going to give my take, but held back because some will never change their thoughts about the gun issue and combined that with the racial implications with the case, it is a never ending discussion.

I believe Chicos started bringing up other cases in which guns/race reaction/self defense have been incorporated and I just wanted to bring up a case which occurred alittle more than three months ago. Some may remember this case, other may not and can google it if you want to learn more.

On the morning of 3/21/13 in Brunswick, Georgia, Sherry West, a white female was walking back from the Post Office with her one year old baby in a stroller.  She was approached by two black males, one of whom was armed with a handgun.  One of the suspects told her "give me your money or I'll kill you and your baby"  She told them "I don't have any money"  The suspect then shot her in the leg, shot at her head, in which a bullet  grazed her forehead and he then shot the baby, sitting in the stroller in the face, killing him.

The police conducted their investigation, which lead to the arrest of two teenagers, ages 17 and 15.  Subsequent investigation lead to the arrest of the mother and aunt of one of the suspects for tampering with evidence.  An arrest of a sister for throwing the murder weapon in a lake, and the arrest of the Brunswick City Commissioner for witness tampering.  

The above case is just a horrible act of violence and made the national news for a day or so.  Then it disappeared.  There were no protests on gun violence, no national media ramifications on race involved in the case, etc., etc.  My point being is that each case is selective in nature and the timing with national media is such a precise issue.  The Zimmerman case was the result of the perfect storm with the media and its coverage.

Keep up the vibrant thought exchanges you guys have been going through, most of you are "standing your ground" on your views and arguments can go on forever.

[ATL MU Warrior]

GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life.  He defended himself, an action he would not have had to take if he wasn't getting his head bashed in.  

On this second case, there are laws for this.  We'll see how this goes and if the Castle Doctrine applies.  At what point are you allowed to defend your property and who gets define "worthless possession"?

This couldn't be more wrong.  The fact that you would say (and seriously believe it) is incomprehensible to me.  GZ's actions absolutely cost TM his life.  You have twisted it in your mind to blame TM (surprise) when that is total BS. Nothing would have happened had GZ not started the entire incident.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

This couldn't be more wrong.  The fact that you would say (and seriously believe it) is incomprehensible to me.  GZ's actions absolutely cost TM his life.  You have twisted it in your mind to blame TM (surprise) when that is total BS. Nothing would have happened had GZ not started the entire incident.  

That's your opinion.  The jurors in their deliberation said the same thing.  Two separate incidents.  Just because GZ shows up, doesn't mean he was going to kill him.  Quite the opposite.  The fight led to the death.  It can be incomprehensible to you all you want, but a separate incident had to happen and to deny that is silly.

If TM goes into his house 30 feet away, he isn't dead.  If the fight doesn't happen, he isn't dead.  Etc.  It's like the morons out there that say "such and such missed a layup at the end of the game and we lost by 1 point..he cost us the game".  No he didn't.  He was just one part of a series of plays that happened an entire game.  Make 2 more free throws, you win.  Play better defense, you win.  Make another shot at any other time in 39 minutes and 59 seconds, you win.  That's just one play.   It's a series of actions.

GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to.  Linkage...of course.  Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen.  NO.  Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen.    It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one.  Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead.  Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

That's your opinion.  The jurors in their deliberation said the same thing.  Two separate incidents.  Just because GZ shows up, doesn't mean he was going to kill him.  Quite the opposite.  The fight led to the death.  It can be incomprehensible to you all you want, but a separate incident had to happen and to deny that is silly.

If TM goes into his house 30 feet away, he isn't dead.  If the fight doesn't happen, he isn't dead.  Etc.  It's like the morons out there that say "such and such missed a layup at the end of the game and we lost by 1 point..he cost us the game".  No he didn't.  He was just one part of a series of plays that happened an entire game.  Make 2 more free throws, you win.  Play better defense, you win.  Make another shot at any other time in 39 minutes and 59 seconds, you win.  That's just one play.   It's a series of actions.

GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to.  Linkage...of course.  Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen.  NO.  Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen.    It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one.  Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead.  Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead. 

I notice that all of your above scenarios cconveniently begin AFTER GZ started following TM.  That is not in dispute.  It is THE ACTION that leads to all possible outcomes.  It was initiated by GZ.  TM is dead.  GM started that chain of events.  Those are the facts. 

Nice comment again about TM getting high.  No wonder you are arguing so vehemently...it is who you are.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The above case is just a horrible act of violence and made the national news for a day or so.  Then it disappeared.  There were no protests on gun violence, no national media ramifications on race involved in the case, etc., etc.  My point being is that each case is selective in nature and the timing with national media is such a precise issue.  The Zimmerman case was the result of the perfect storm with the media and its coverage.

I may be reading this wrong, but I get the sense you think it is a perfect storm and just happened to have all the ducks in a row. To me, it was pushed as a racial issue when there never was a racial issue.  Then the media and their counterparts ginned that up to the extreme.  Let's not forget this was not a media event for quite some time until a few individuals decided to make it about race, then it took off. 

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and very left wing guy came right out from day one and said this case never should have brought forward, much to angst of some of his pals on that side.  This was a circus perpetuated by some that didn't understand the law, wanted to make it a racial case and the media was absolutely willing to carry that water as a partner.  So much so that they were willing to edit 911 tapes, put out photographs of the victim from years earlier as if he was some 10 year old kid, put out false information on what he was purchasing at the store and what it was used for, willing to create a new term of "white hispanic" (first time in NY Times history they had used that term to identify an individual.   

More than a perfect storm...a manufactured storm.

[forgetful]

If someone pushes me off a cliff, that has ropes and trees along the way.  And I try to grab the ropes and trees that could have saved my life, is it no longer the guys fault that pushed me off the cliff.

Afterall they are distinctly different events separated in time.  My falling to my death could have been avoided if I merely grabbed a rope or a tree.  The actions that initiated the process can not be blamed as they are dependent on my failures to save my own life.

Reduction ad absurdum.

[nyg]

I may be reading this wrong, but I get the sense you think it is a perfect storm and just happened to have all the ducks in a row. To me, it was pushed as a racial issue when there never was a racial issue.  Then the media and their counterparts ginned that up to the extreme.  Let's not forget this was not a media event for quite some time until a few individuals decided to make it about race, then it took off. 

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and very left wing guy came right out from day one and said this case never should have brought forward, much to angst of some of his pals on that side.  This was a circus perpetuated by some that didn't understand the law, wanted to make it a racial case and the media was absolutely willing to carry that water as a partner.  So much so that they were willing to edit 911 tapes, put out photographs of the victim from years earlier as if he was some 10 year old kid, put out false information on what he was purchasing at the store and what it was used for, willing to create a new term of "white hispanic" (first time in NY Times history they had used that term to identify an individual.   

More than a perfect storm...a manufactured storm.

Yes, it was a perfect manufactured storm and yes, the stars were aligned with the media.  If Zimmerman had not racially quoted himself on the non-emergency call he made, non issue.  And Chicos, not only Martin's photo, but Zimmerman's prior arrest photo from five years earlier, which was the comparison photo utilized by the media.  

[ATL MU Warrior]

If someone pushes me off a cliff, that has ropes and trees along the way.  And I try to grab the ropes and trees that could have saved my life, is it no longer the guys fault that pushed me off the cliff.

Afterall they are distinctly different events separated in time.  My falling to my death could have been avoided if I merely grabbed a rope or a tree.  The actions that initiated the process can not be blamed as they are dependent on my failures to save my own life.

Reduction ad absurdum.

If a guy pushes you off a cliff and you fall to your death, you died because the guy pushed you off the cliff in the first place.  Whatever else happens along the way only happens because the guy pushed you...he initiated the events that cost you your life.

That is what I am arguing.  Are you arguing otherwise or agreeing with me?

[forgetful]

If a guy pushes you off a cliff and you fall to your death, you died because the guy pushed you off the cliff in the first place.  Whatever else happens along the way only happens because the guy pushed you...he initiated the events that cost you your life.

That is what I am arguing.  Are you arguing otherwise or agreeing with me?

We're in agreement.  Argument was for Chicos, who refuses to acknowledge that a precipitating event is responsible for downstream outcomes.

[mu_hilltopper]

We're in agreement.  Argument was for Chicos, who refuses to acknowledge that a precipitating event is responsible for downstream outcomes.

Every event has influence on downstream outcomes.  Getting up in the morning and boarding the plane that crashes has influence, but not as much as the pilot coming in too low.

[forgetful]

Every event has influence on downstream outcomes.  Getting up in the morning and boarding the plane that crashes has influence, but not as much as the pilot coming in too low.

Understood, but in this instance the precipitating event had direct repercussions on the outcome and influenced the event. 

In your scenario getting up in the morning and not boarding the plane, would not have affected the outcome.  Thus it is not a precipitating event and does not fit in Chico's argument.

Had GZ not followed TM, the downstream events would not have occurred.  Thus, it does constitute a precipitating event as it is directly coupled to the outcome.  Since, his decision was made in poor judgement he is then at the least morally culpable for the outcome (if not legally culpable...jury said no).

My reduction ad absurdum was to illustrate that Chicos attempt to separate the events is not accurate as treatment of similar precipitating events would be absurd, thus his logic is flawed.

A simpler type of reduction related to your plane concept above would be as follows.  A mechanic gets drunk before going to work, he subsequently makes an error when fixing the altimeter, making it appear as if the plane is 1000 ft higher than it should be.  His supervisor checks his work, but misses the error.  Coming in for landing, the pilot fails to realize that he is lower than the instruments are reporting and subsequently approaches too low, resulting in a crashed landing. 

Under Chicos logic, the mechanic is not culpable as, others mistakes should have remedied his error.  Such an argument is absurd, as the mechanic being drunk on the job and performing shoddy work is the negligent act.  His supervisor also shares culpability, but that doesn't absolve the mechanic of his wrong doings.

Hence, reduction ad absurdum.