Neighborhood watch captain kills black teen - doesn't get arrested

[iceberg]

Never said that.

Unfortunately we do not trial and punish on feelings...... at least that is what they say.

If we start that ..... It opens a can of worms on many potential "HATE" crimes.

this is why i don't feel a "hate crime" should be more punishable because "the accused" hated blacks, gays, latinos, long hair - whatever.

to me doing that continues to put a divide between what we're trying to remove.

if some psycho gets off on killing women and goes on a spree for a few weeks and kills 4-5 innocent women of all races and ages, are their deaths less meaningless cause the killer didn't "hate"?

if a killer hates gays and finds 4-5 to kill, should his penalty be more harsh because he just happened to *hate* his victims vs. the innocent women who just were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[Rackat]

this is why i don't feel a "hate crime" should be more punishable because "the accused" hated blacks, gays, latinos, long hair - whatever.

to me doing that continues to put a divide between what we're trying to remove.

if some psycho gets off on killing women and goes on a spree for a few weeks and kills 4-5 innocent women of all races and ages, are their deaths less meaningless cause the killer didn't "hate"?

if a killer hates gays and finds 4-5 to kill, should his penalty be more harsh because he just happened to *hate* his victims vs. the innocent women who just were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Well stated.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

It's funny that really want to give this guy zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and play devils advocate on his behalf. This guy is clearly a nut. He was not a cop. He was not a neighborhood watchman. He had no reason to follow the kid and was even instructed NOT TO DO SO! The kid had every right to turn around and kick this guys arse but he ran away. Zimmerman chased him down and then shot him.

he was not instructed to not follow, they said they did not need him to do so.

"we don't need you to do that".

it's funny that those of you that hold the position you do continue to cling to incorrect facts.

 

[joseephuss]

this is why i don't feel a "hate crime" should be more punishable because "the accused" hated blacks, gays, latinos, long hair - whatever.

to me doing that continues to put a divide between what we're trying to remove.

if some psycho gets off on killing women and goes on a spree for a few weeks and kills 4-5 innocent women of all races and ages, are their deaths less meaningless cause the killer didn't "hate"?

if a killer hates gays and finds 4-5 to kill, should his penalty be more harsh because he just happened to *hate* his victims vs. the innocent women who just were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The intent of the "hate crime" laws were not to make the penalties more harsh. It was to make sure the penalties weren't less. I know that sounds a bit confusing, so I will throw out this simple example. A guy killed an innocent white person and got 20 years of prison. A guy killed an innocent black person and got 10 years of prison. Throw in a "hate crime" and then they get that guy to the same 20 year prison sentence. Seems like a simple good hearted intent to the "hate crime" laws, but sometimes good intentions just don't work out the way they were planned.

I have always seen the "hate crime" laws as an attempt to help balance out and imperfect justice system. I just don't think it is a good way to do it and it can easily be abused and misused. I also think it can cause more of a divide rather than helping to unite.

 

[DFWJC]

Never said that.



Unfortunately we do not trial and punish on feelings...... at least that is what they say.

If we start that ..... It opens a can of worms on many potential "HATE" crimes.

Just the label "hate crimes" so often seems silly.
After the Rodney King fiasco, for example, that poor truck driver getting pulled out of his truck for no reason other than his skin color and beaten even within an inch of life didn't even get a mention regarding hate crime. And if there was ever a racially motivated crime, that was a great example.

The flipped script happens a lot. Sometimes it gets press but more often it's almost taken for granted.

A crime is a crime, regardless of what race the perpetrator or victim was.

My guess is that this trigger happy doofus was almost certainly biased against the victim because of his skin color...but the (potential) crime is equally bad regardless of skin color. If it's murder, it's murder.

 

[joseephuss]

he was not instructed to not follow, they said they did not need him to do so.

"we don't need you to do that".

it's funny that those of you that hold the position you do continue to cling to incorrect facts.

Even the correct fact does not play well for Zimmerman.

 

[iceberg]

The intent of the "hate crime" laws were not to make the penalties more harsh. It was to make sure the penalties weren't less. I know that sounds a bit confusing, so I will throw out this simple example. A guy killed an innocent white person and got 20 years of prison. A guy killed an innocent black person and got 10 years of prison. Throw in a "hate crime" and then they get that guy to the same 20 year prison sentence. Seems like a simple good hearted intent to the "hate crime" laws, but sometimes good intentions just don't work out the way they were planned.

I have always seen the "hate crime" laws as an attempt to help balance out and imperfect justice system. I just don't think it is a good way to do it and it can easily be abused and misused. I also think it can cause more of a divide rather than helping to unite.

never thought about it that way. it always seemed that the "hate crime" people were wanting *more* punishment because of hate

i totally agree that the penalty should be the same and lends itself to trying to legislate morality and how people should feel.

 

[Big D]

he was not instructed to not follow, they said they did not need him to do so.

"we don't need you to do that".

it's funny that those of you that hold the position you do continue to cling to incorrect facts.

The facts are:

he had no reason to chase the kid down.
the kid did nothing wrong.
he was not a cop.
HE killed the kid!

but whatever, I understand you think of this guy as an upstanding individual and that's your right.

 

[iceberg]

The facts are:

he had no reason to chase the kid down.
the kid did nothing wrong.
he was not a cop.
HE killed the kid!

but whatever, I understand you think of this guy as an upstanding individual and that's your right.

as aggrevating as he's been in this, he's really just playing devils advocate and at no time did i ever hear him say this guy was an upstanding individual.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The facts are:

he had no reason to chase the kid down.
the kid did nothing wrong.
he was not a cop.
HE killed the kid!

but whatever, I understand you think of this guy as an upstanding individual and that's your right.

Just because he is arguing the other side of the coin does not mean he thinks the guy is an upstanding individual.

The quicker you realize that they better you might be able to debate with him.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Even the correct fact does not play well for Zimmerman.

in a court of law, it will. in the gun hating general public where rights are some mystery, it might not play too well.

 

[The30YardSlant]

in a court of law, it will. in the gun hating general public where rights are some mystery, it might not play too well.

I like my guns as much as anybody but I don't see how this could possibly end well for Zimmerman at this point. Granted they might not get him for murder but I can't imagine he doesnt at least get brought up on manslaughter charges.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

The facts are:

he had no reason to chase the kid down.

this is an opinion.

the kid did nothing wrong.

this is an opinion.

he was not a cop.

finally, a fact

HE killed the kid!

another fact. what we don't know is if it was illegal

 

[TheCount]

But like I said, half this country doesnt support the death penalty. Life in prison with no possibility of parole is as bad as it legally gets in some states and in many people's opinions.

Either way, the person's "life" is over. Spending 50 years in a cell 23 hours a day isnt a life. In that sense I have no problem with it not being called a hate crime and am happy it wasnt, because they got what they deserved WITHOUT making their crime special or worse than other cold-blooded killings.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that his lawyer argued a difference of intent. If I recall correctly the driver was younger, never left the truck and had to be seriously "convinced" to drive away. This was why he was the only one who showed remorse. He was certainly guilty and deserved what he got but the circumstances and intent were different.

I'm not touching a death penalty argument with a 10 foot pole, that isn't what we were talking about. Whether life in prison is the same as being dead is another argument that has nothing to do with the initial statement you made.

You were saying they all got convicted and put to death and that's not what happened, obviously by this point you've gone back and looked at it and know better what the result of that case was but until then, you were opperating under the impression they were all executed.

Unless you're now trying to argue that by "put to death", you actually meant "one is dead, the other is pending appeals and one has life."?

We certainly agree, or at least I think we do, that all three deserved death sentences. That's why I say the hate crime law isn't as useless as some are claiming it is and that it actually matters in court. In other words - Murder is not, in fact, murder.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I'm not touching a death penalty argument with a 10 foot pole, that isn't what we were talking about. Whether life in prison is the same as being dead is another argument that has nothing to do with the initial statement you made.

You were saying they all got convicted and put to death and that's not what happened, obviously by this point you've gone back and looked at it and know better what the result of that case was but until then, you were opperating under the impression they were all executed.

Unless you're now trying to argue that by "put to death", you actually meant "one is dead, the other is pending appeals and one has life."?

What? I never said they were all executed.

 

[joseephuss]

in a court of law, it will. in the gun hating general public where rights are some mystery, it might not play too well.

I disagree. It is not as bad as him being directly ordered not to follow, but it still isn't a good thing that they told him "we don't need you to do that". I don't see how he gains much benefit from it.

 

[The30YardSlant]

this is an opinion.



this is an opinion.



finally, a fact



another fact. what we don't know is if it was illegal

I don't see how it is an opinion that he didnt NEED to chase the kid down. The operator told him he didnt need to.

 

[Romo_To_Dez]

in a court of law, it will. in the gun hating general public where rights are some mystery, it might not play too well.

The SPD is trying to prevent is from going to a court of law, which is part of the whole outrage in their refusal to make an arrest. Now what if all Police Department's just took the word of the Killer and did not arrest or properly investigate one person killing another?


If every Police department so easily took the word of the killer, than I guess anyone can commit cold blooded murder and claim Self Defense as long as there are no other witnesses around.

What's next a man tracks down a woman on the street and tries to rape her, she fights make and gives him some minor injuries and he kills her and claims that he feared for his life.

Since receiving minor injuries is now a good reason to kill someone. Which is what all of GZ's defenders are saying. Because Zimmerman had a bloody nose it's okay for him to shoot and kill. Now can people bring a gun to a fist fight and claim Self Defense if they get a bloody nose or black eye?

 

[Big D]

this is an opinion.



this is an opinion.



finally, a fact



another fact. what we don't know is if it was illegal

Whatever dude! I guess the kid stole the skittles and walked away with that suspicious 'stolen skittle' walk that they do. Riiiiight!

 

[TheCount]

What? I never said they were all executed.

I'm sorry, that was actually Doomsday. I apologize, got confused in the trail of quotes.