|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
metalhead
Joined: 18 May 2010
Location: Toilet
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yodanole wrote: |
| Thank God that the pimps in the good old US of A are much more enlightened and would never abuse, torture or kill any of the girls in their "stable". America is world - renowned for the kindliness and gentle indulgence of our pimps .... |
Everyone in the U.S. knows not to mess with the merchandise.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| earthquakez wrote: |
[
You just have to think of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who was followed and then shot by an armed vigilante in Florida because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and was walking home through a predominantly white and privileged neighbourhood. |
You might not want to use that example since that is not what happened at all.
Yes he was followed by Zimmerman but according to the transcript of the 9/11 call Zimmerman lost Trayvon Martin and returned to his truck. He then was approached and attacked by Martin and was knocked to the ground on his back with Trayvon on top and punching him. And in fear for his life he shot Martin. It is worth noting that almost every single bit of evidence( forensic and eyewitness accounts) backed up Zimmerman's story...the transcripts of the calls, the place he was found, the clothes, the powder burns on Martin's body...etc.
Nor was Zimmerman a "vigilante" he was approached and asked by the neighborhood watch committee to be their captain.
So in following Martin (a unknown individual in a high crime neighborhood) he was just doing his job.
Which is very likely why he was acquitted even though he was rather an unsympathetic individual in his personal life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| earthquakez wrote: |
[
You just have to think of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who was followed and then shot by an armed vigilante in Florida because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and was walking home through a predominantly white and privileged neighbourhood. |
You might not want to use that example since that is not what happened at all.
Yes he was followed by Zimmerman but according to the transcript of the 9/11 call Zimmerman lost Trayvon Martin and returned to his truck. He then was approached and attacked by Martin and was knocked to the ground on his back with Trayvon on top and punching him. And in fear for his life he shot Martin. It is worth noting that almost every single bit of evidence( forensic and eyewitness accounts) backed up Zimmerman's story...the transcripts of the calls, the place he was found, the clothes, the powder burns on Martin's body...etc.
Nor was Zimmerman a "vigilante" he was approached and asked by the neighborhood watch committee to be their captain.
So in following Martin (a unknown individual in a high crime neighborhood) he was just doing his job.
Which is very likely why he was acquitted even though he was rather an unsympathetic individual in his personal life. |
Not that this comes as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with your post history, but this is completely inaccurate. I would give a link to the real story, but seriously if you google it every single one will explain it. In fact, the most famous quote from this story, "We don't need you to do that," is in response to Zimmerman saying he was following Martin after he started to run away.
There is dispute on who started the scuffle, but since only one party is still alive and no one else saw how it started, we should probably still take it with a grain of salt. Still, it has never been said that Zimmerman was sitting in his truck when Martin came out of no where to attack him. The reason he was acquitted was due to the "Stand Your Ground" law, not due to self-defence laws. The latter only allows for you to protect yourself if attacked. The former allows you to pursue someone and still use deadly force even if you put yourself in that situation, which is exactly what happened. If the Stand your ground law wasn't in force, Zimmerman would be in jail.
Anyway, this is off topic. I look forward to personal insults and a quote from a random blog from some guy in Arizona to 'prove' me wrong now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| earthquakez wrote: |
[
You just have to think of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who was followed and then shot by an armed vigilante in Florida because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and was walking home through a predominantly white and privileged neighbourhood. |
You might not want to use that example since that is not what happened at all.
Yes he was followed by Zimmerman but according to the transcript of the 9/11 call Zimmerman lost Trayvon Martin and returned to his truck. He then was approached and attacked by Martin and was knocked to the ground on his back with Trayvon on top and punching him. And in fear for his life he shot Martin. It is worth noting that almost every single bit of evidence( forensic and eyewitness accounts) backed up Zimmerman's story...the transcripts of the calls, the place he was found, the clothes, the powder burns on Martin's body...etc.
Nor was Zimmerman a "vigilante" he was approached and asked by the neighborhood watch committee to be their captain.
So in following Martin (a unknown individual in a high crime neighborhood) he was just doing his job.
Which is very likely why he was acquitted even though he was rather an unsympathetic individual in his personal life. |
Not that this comes as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with your post history, but this is completely inaccurate. I would give a link to the real story, but seriously if you google it every single one will explain it. In fact, the most famous quote from this story, "We don't need you to do that," is in response to Zimmerman saying he was following Martin after he started to run away.
|
I'm pretty sure TUM is in Korea because he fears the 흑인 as much as your average Korean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shame some outraged Korean couldn't just walk up and stab them all in the heart. But, then they'd go to jail and where would be the justice in that? As for the criminals, the perps will no doubt get a slap on the wrist while the judge holds the victims suffering in contempt.
One can hold out hope that they get the death penalty, but I won't hold my breath on that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
There is dispute on who started the scuffle, but since only one party is still alive and no one else saw how it started, we should probably still take it with a grain of salt. Still, it has never been said that Zimmerman was sitting in his truck when Martin came out of no where to attack him. The reason he was acquitted was due to the "Stand Your Ground" law, not due to self-defence laws. The latter only allows for you to protect yourself if attacked. The former allows you to pursue someone and still use deadly force even if you put yourself in that situation, which is exactly what happened. If the Stand your ground law wasn't in force, Zimmerman would be in jail.
|
This is somewhat incorrect. Zimmerman's defense team did not invoke the Stand Your Ground Clause and seek a pretrial immunity hearing based off of that. Instead, they went with classic self-defense. Now, the jury was allowed to consider Stand Your Ground as part of its deliberations. And it may have played a significant factor, so BC may be right in a general sense and TUM correct in a technical sense.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi
| Quote: |
| The former allows you to pursue someone and still use deadly force even if you put yourself in that situation |
This is a summary of Florida's Stand Your Ground law-
"There are three parts to Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It states that a person is presumed to have reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when using defensive force if an intruder has broken into his or her home or vehicle and is justified in using force; it states that a person does not have a duty to retreat if he or she believes death or bodily harm is imminent; and it provides immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/florida-had-first-stand-your-ground-law-other-states-followed-f6C10672364
The law in full- http://floridastandyourground.org/law.html
There is nothing in the law that allows you to pursue someone and use deadly force.
My opinion is that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of criminal charges because we have only one version of what happened- his, combined with physical injury to him that might support his story. Reasonable doubt necessitates an acquittal. This is what happens when you have the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'reasonable doubt'.
However, I think there is enough there to nail him with a wrongful death suit and I hope to see it happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coralreefer_1
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LOL at you people arguing about Martin and Zimmerman. Get a room |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cave Dweller
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see it a cause of desensitized young people to violence. I am not one of those people who screams about video games. I watched WWE wrestling, slasher films and the such since I was young and I am a pretty gentle guy. I can separate imaginary things from reality. Not all people can.
As for the lack of remorse, you just have to live here for a bit and look around you. The general lack of regard for other people is completely obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
This is somewhat incorrect. Zimmerman's defense team did not invoke the Stand Your Ground Clause and seek a pretrial immunity hearing based off of that. Instead, they went with classic self-defense. Now, the jury was allowed to consider Stand Your Ground as part of its deliberations. And it may have played a significant factor, so BC may be right in a general sense and TUM correct in a technical sense.
|
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=cpy
| Quote: |
There is nothing in the law that allows you to pursue someone and use deadly force.
|
Ok, not technically. But it says you don't have to 'retreat', either. That's what happened in this case. Zimmerman didn't retreat to his car, as UM said he did. He pursued Martin, who then perhaps (it's hard to know since he's gone now) defended himself. At that point Zimmerman used deadly force, which would not stand up to self-defence because he himself put himself in that situation by not initially retreating. Thus, he used Stand Your Ground as a defence after pursuing Martin and killing him, and it worked. So even it's not coded into the law, in practice that is what happens.
Anyway, I have no interest in rehashing the rights and wrongs of this case, it's been done over and over again. My point was that UM was spreading misinformation with his post, Zimmerman didn't dutifully go back to his car and get ambushed. It's a matter of record that he pursued Martin and ignored the instructions to return to his vehicle. It's just amazing how quickly established history can be rewritten for political purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:47 am Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
This is somewhat incorrect. Zimmerman's defense team did not invoke the Stand Your Ground Clause and seek a pretrial immunity hearing based off of that. Instead, they went with classic self-defense. Now, the jury was allowed to consider Stand Your Ground as part of its deliberations. And it may have played a significant factor, so BC may be right in a general sense and TUM correct in a technical sense.
|
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=cpy
| Quote: |
There is nothing in the law that allows you to pursue someone and use deadly force.
|
Ok, not technically. But it says you don't have to 'retreat', either. That's what happened in this case. Zimmerman didn't retreat to his car, as UM said he did. He pursued Martin, who then perhaps (it's hard to know since he's gone now) defended himself. At that point Zimmerman used deadly force, which would not stand up to self-defence because he himself put himself in that situation by not initially retreating. Thus, he used Stand Your Ground as a defence after pursuing Martin and killing him, and it worked. So even it's not coded into the law, in practice that is what happens.
Anyway, I have no interest in rehashing the rights and wrongs of this case, it's been done over and over again. My point was that UM was spreading misinformation with his post, Zimmerman didn't dutifully go back to his car and get ambushed. It's a matter of record that he pursued Martin and ignored the instructions to return to his vehicle. It's just amazing how quickly established history can be rewritten for political purposes. |
Yeah, I agree with your general take on it, but I have to say that a 'Stand Your Ground' defense requires a specific pre-trial motion and the defense team chose not to do that. Now, the judge did give the options to consider Stand Your Ground during their deliberations, and as you said, it was a STRONG motivating factor during those deliberations. To repeat, TUM may be right in letter, you are right in spirit.
Me personally, I really hope the guy gets taken for every penny in civil court. He should get OJ'd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Yeah, I agree with your general take on it, but I have to say that a 'Stand Your Ground' defense requires a specific pre-trial motion and the defense team chose not to do that. Now, the judge did give the options to consider Stand Your Ground during their deliberations, and as you said, it was a STRONG motivating factor during those deliberations. To repeat, TUM may be right in letter, you are right in spirit.
Me personally, I really hope the guy gets taken for every penny in civil court. He should get OJ'd. |
See, this is what I mean by rewriting history and whitewashing the facts.
UM is not right in any sense. He said Zimmerman was walking back to his car. That is not true, as in it's against the stated and proven facts. Zimmerman even admitted as such. We're not both 'right' here. There are facts, and there are non-facts. UM stated a non-fact. I'm not 'right' either, I'm just stating very accessible, established and proven facts. This isn't a debate.
On the same note, again I'm not 'right' in saying Stand Your Ground kept Zimmerman out of jail. The jurors, the ones who made the decision, stated that. Again, it's a fact, I'm just relaying it. Also a fact, simple self defence wouldn't have held up because of the facts from the first paragraph I wrote; Zimmerman didn't return to his car and instead pursued Martin. That is stated by the jurors, the people who made the decision. I'm not 'arguing' anything here. I'm stated established facts that every single reputable source supports. It's like arguing over whether water is wet. There is no argument, there is no right and wrong, there is no winner and loser. There are facts, and there are non-facts.
It's not the Zimmerman/Martin case that gets my goat, it's the complete re-writing of history to 'prove' a point, and the idea that everything is debatable. To me, it's really American, specifically FOX News American. Not every statement has two sides, not everyone with an opinion is relevant and it's perfectly alright not to have an opinion on something.
And this is how most threads get turned into 18 page flame wars, because people just don't understand this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanderkind
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are more appropriate locations available for this amateur jurisdoctor dick measuring.
For example: http://imgur.com/A9X7Nz1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:26 am Post subject: Re: realm of reason? |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| [ Zimmerman didn't retreat to his car, as UM said he did. He pursued Martin, who then perhaps (it's hard to know since he's gone now) defended himself. . |
I said no such thing. I said quite clearly "according to the transcript of the 9/11 call Zimmerman lost Trayvon Martin and returned to his truck."
In other words I was QUOTING what the transcript of the 9/11 call said. And I posted it in its entirety on the Zimmerman thread
| Quote: |
Zimmerman could see the direction Martin took but could no longer “maintain a visual” from the truck. Ambient wind sounds suggest he started walking swiftly, likely in the same direction Martin was running
GZ: The back entrance. It’s f***ing cold (garbled, much disputed).
The dispatcher obviously heard the wind sounds.
SPD: Are you following him? [2:24]
GZ: Yeah.
SPD: Okay. We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
GZ: Okay.
SPD: All right, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
GZ: George. He ran.
At this point, Zimmerman’s breathing relaxed, and the sound of wind abated.
SPD: All right, George, what’s your last name?
GZ: Zimmerman.
SPD: And George, what’s the phone number you’re calling from?
GZ: 407-435-2400.
SPD: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
GZ: Yeah.
SPD: All right, where are you going to meet with them at?
GZ: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes they’ll see my truck. [3:10]
SPD: All right, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
GZ: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]
SPD: Okay, do you live in the area?
GZ: Yeah, yeah, I live here.
SPD: Okay, what’s your apartment number?
GZ: It’s a home. It’s 1950 — oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out — I don’t know where this kid is (inaudible) |
So we can see AGAIN according to the transcript that (a) he lost Martin and (b) he was planning to meet with the police officers back at his truck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
