This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Let's speak strictly hypothetically. Let's say someone of your exact physical stature, named Wayne were to be standing in a field. Now lets say a 17 year old, over 6 foot 3 inches, over 150 pounds named Gary were also in the field, and he had a bag of skittles. Now let's say that Gary were to decide to drop his bag of skittles on the ground, and beat Wayne to death with his bare hands. I've got a hunch that Gary might stand a good chance of killing him.And Wayne having a gun makes an even better chance for Gary to not go for him. Also, as an FYI: I'm actually 6'3 and weight more then 150 =P to be a complete and utter smart ass.
Now, let me break down what you said. Martin is more innocent than Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not dead. This does not somehow make Zimmerman automatically guilty.
However, you have already decided why Zimmerman killed him. See there "for being in the wrong place at the wrong time". That's what started the entire thing: Zimmerman started following Martin because he happened to 'resemble' a description of someone who was breaking into houses.
My entire point with this is not the guilt of Zimmerman, nor the guilt of Martin. You've missed the point of all this... again.... and again... and again. You don't seem to pay attention to what I've been saying. I know you pay attention if it is pointed at
you
personally. So that you hear me, I will make this pointed:
You are wrong, Adamsm. You are wrong in thinking that you know what happened. You don't. I'm not saying I do, and I'm not saying that anyone else does. I'm saying that
you don't
. Further, it comes accross as arrogant, brash, and unjust to wave around your uninformed opinions. So, either provide your empirical evidence for the guilt of Zimmerman, and further your authority to decide guilt, or stop pretending you have either.
Isn't that what everyone does on a forum, since pretty much everything is everyone's opinions. I'm sorry, but as the evidence is pointing more and more that Zimmerman is trying shovel crap down people's throats to justify him killing someone who was walking home after going to the store.
Post by
MyTie
You are wrong, Adamsm. You are wrong in thinking that you know what happened. You don't. I'm not saying I do, and I'm not saying that anyone else does. I'm saying that
you don't
. Further, it comes accross as arrogant, brash, and unjust to wave around your uninformed opinions. So, either provide your empirical evidence for the guilt of Zimmerman, and further your authority to decide guilt, or stop pretending you have either.
I asked you on the previous page to "play nice" and I shouldn't have to repeat that. Adamsm isn't doing anything out of the ordinary by stating his opinion based on the material he's seen. You've been doing the same. It is uncalled for to suggest that someone else giving their opinion on the forum is "arrogant, brash and unjust" simply because you disagree with them.
No no. It wasn't stated as opinion. It was "he did this because". This isn't about Zimmerman. It isn't about Martin. It is about these opinions. These opinions are arrogant, they are brash, and they are unjust. To decide the guilt of someone, and further decide why they did it, without having evidence or being in the position of judge and jury, then you are damaging the ability of this person to get justice, whether that be guilty justice or innocent justice. That is my issue with this entire thing.
It is arrogant to do so because the person who does so thinks highly enough of their own opinions to place judgement in a murder case.
It is brash because it doesn't take into consideration the consequences for such speculation.
It is unjust because there is no measure of facts in the application of judgement.
I have not been doing the same. Quote once where I passed judgement onto this or any other case, especially as serious as murder.
There is no need to "play nice". Even if you consider this mean, it is pretty tame stuff I'm pointing out here. So, by all means, repeat yourself. Until I devolve from confrontation to insulting, you really don't have ground to censor.
Post by
MyTie
Let's speak strictly hypothetically. Let's say someone of your exact physical stature, named Wayne were to be standing in a field. Now lets say a 17 year old, over 6 foot 3 inches, over 150 pounds named Gary were also in the field, and he had a bag of skittles. Now let's say that Gary were to decide to drop his bag of skittles on the ground, and beat Wayne to death with his bare hands. I've got a hunch that Gary might stand a good chance of killing him.And Wayne having a gun makes an even better chance for Gary to not go for him. Also, as an FYI: I'm actually 6'3 and weight more then 150 =P to be a complete and utter smart ass.
Now, let me break down what you said. Martin is more innocent than Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not dead. This does not somehow make Zimmerman automatically guilty.
However, you have already decided why Zimmerman killed him. See there "for being in the wrong place at the wrong time". That's what started the entire thing: Zimmerman started following Martin because he happened to 'resemble' a description of someone who was breaking into houses.
My entire point with this is not the guilt of Zimmerman, nor the guilt of Martin. You've missed the point of all this... again.... and again... and again. You don't seem to pay attention to what I've been saying. I know you pay attention if it is pointed at
you
personally. So that you hear me, I will make this pointed:
You are wrong, Adamsm. You are wrong in thinking that you know what happened. You don't. I'm not saying I do, and I'm not saying that anyone else does. I'm saying that
you don't
. Further, it comes accross as arrogant, brash, and unjust to wave around your uninformed opinions. So, either provide your empirical evidence for the guilt of Zimmerman, and further your authority to decide guilt, or stop pretending you have either.
Isn't that what everyone does on a forum, since pretty much everything is everyone's opinions. I'm sorry, but as the evidence is pointing more and more that Zimmerman is trying shovel crap down people's throats to justify him killing someone who was walking home after going to the store.
It is one thing to say that you see the evidence, and suspect something, and it is another to say "he did this because". By the way, downplaying this guy as "on the way to the store", and the "danger of skittles", really doesn't bring light to the issue.
Post by
Adamsm
By the way, downplaying this guy as "on the way to the store", and the "danger of skittles", really doesn't bring light to the issue.The core issue is the fact that someone killed someone else for trespassing; the media/African American causes have blown it up into a race issue; Martin's mother has asked repeatedly that people don't use her son as the subject for their causes as she wants it just focused on the actual case.
The only racial thing I've agreed with is about the racial profiling, and to me, that was done by Zimmerman in regards to Martin. I admit the skittle comment was stupid, but Martin was on the way home from going to the store; how is that not part of the story?
Post by
asakawa
MyTie, my position on the forum is moderator. This discussion is crossing the line into one that requires moderation. You're allowed to disagree - it's expected, since you're the one I consider to be crossing the line, that you don't think you're doing so - but I'm asking you to please accept that I want you to ease off the sarcastic and insulting comments about other users.
This is a discussion forum where we trade opinions with one another. Adamsm has his. You have yours. Both are fine and if a jury's verdict were required in order to discuss or to formulate opinions on matters then there would be little left to discuss. It's okay to speculate and it's okay to make a judgement on what you do know despite that being far short of the burden of proof.
If you can't discuss the opinions maturely and respectfully then I'd really like you to step away from the discussion instead of reacting like you have been.
Thanks.
Post by
MyTie
By the way, downplaying this guy as "on the way to the store", and the "danger of skittles", really doesn't bring light to the issue.The core issue is the fact that someone killed someone else for trespassing; the media/African American causes have blown it up into a race issue. The only racial thing I've agreed with is about the racial profiling, and to me, that was done by Zimmerman in regards to Martin. I admit the skittle comment was stupid, but Martin was on the way home from going to the store; how is that not part of the story?
Ok. Let's try this a different way. I'll point out the only two words in your post that I take issue with. Then, you tell me why you think I would take issue with those words.
The two words are:
"for trespassing"
Thanks
Send me an email, if you please.
Post by
asakawa
Thanks
Send me an email, if you please.
This isn't a discussion. I put my earlier post in a mod box to try and make that clear.
I'm not asking much, just that you take the tone down a level and back to something a bit more respectful.
edit: Besides, I need to go to bed
edit edit: Also, I have an email address on my userpage if you wish to contact me(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
Ok. Let's try this a different way. I'll point out the only two words in your post that I take issue with. Then, you tell me why you think I would take issue with those words.
The two words are:
"for trespassing"Gated communities have idiotic rules(personal opinion); Zimmerman was following Martin because to him, the boy shouldn't have been there(doesn't matter if Martin was black/white/yellow whatever) and he matched a vague description of a burglar who had hit homes in the location.
To me, the biggest issue is still that Zimmerman instigated this; he followed Martin and as Martin's phone call to his girlfriend shows, freaked him the hell out....and no matter how 'scary' looking Martin was, he was still a teenager being followed by some strange guy. If Martin did rush Zimmerman, why didn't he just take out his gun and wave it around; most people stop when they see a weapon.
Post by
MyTie
Thanks
Send me an email, if you please.
This isn't a discussion. I put my earlier post in a mod box to try and make that clear.
I'm not asking much, just that you take the tone down a level and back to something a bit more respectful.
The mod box made it clear that it WAS open for discussion, as all mod activities I've ever encountered in the past have been. Regardless of whether my comments were over the line or not, you have slammed shut the door of communication. This community, mods and all, are all about communication. One of the things that makes wowhead so strong is the trust that the community places in the moderators. This discussion needs to take place, and shouldn't be taking place in a thread about News Articles. If you wish to publicly display your moderation in such a heavy handed and finalized manner, then you are setting a new standard for this community in terms of how moderation will be handled. In the past, moderators who went too far, were brought back down, or even removed from staff. I thought that we had come a long ways from the wild west days of wowhead where mods just banned and silenced and locked at will, and where entire pages of posts or even threads just disappeared. I thought there was more input from the users. However, this confrontation with a moderator I've had in a long time that has effectively backed me into a corner. As I see it, I have four options for getting out of this corner. The first option is to submit completely to your power, which is not acceptable to me because I firmly beleive you are wrong. The second option is to fight you, which is not acceptable to you because you can't indulge open debates on moderation. The third option is to ignore you completely, which would work for a time, but in the end we would just hate each-other. The fourth option is for a compromise, which looks like this:
I understand you are tired. So, in the spirit of compromise, I'll follow your moderation, and be extra sweet all night. I even followed your advice and took a step back. You're right in the fact that that isn't asking too much. On the other hand, neither is it asking too much for you to address this personally with me through a private exchange of communication. When you feel comfortable doing so, follow this discussion up with me privately.
(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##MyTie, the mod box makes it clear that it's a directive, and if you want to discuss it, use the appropriate feedback channels. Arguing in the forum with asakawa about moderation is going to be no more productive than arguing in the forum with Skyfire. It's not up to a moderator to follow this up with you - your option is for you to follow it up with the site if you have an issue with the moderation. You know this. <---- is that way. Report is on the top right. Email asakawa privately if he's inviting you to. You know what to do.
Post by
MyTie
Ok. Let's try this a different way. I'll point out the only two words in your post that I take issue with. Then, you tell me why you think I would take issue with those words.
The two words are:
"for trespassing"Gated communities have idiotic rules(personal opinion); Zimmerman was following Martin because to him, the boy shouldn't have been there(doesn't matter if Martin was black/white/yellow whatever) and he matched a vague description of a burglar who had hit homes in the location.
To me, the biggest issue is still that Zimmerman instigated this; he followed Martin and as Martin's phone call to his girlfriend shows, freaked him the hell out....and no matter how 'scary' looking Martin was, he was still a teenager being followed by some strange guy. If Martin did rush Zimmerman, why didn't he just take out his gun and wave it around; most people stop when they see a weapon.
You and I, we aren't on the same page. The reason I took issue with those two words is that no one but Zimmerman knows, at this point, why Zimmerman shot Martin. Was it "for trespassing", or was it based on "racism", or "ego", or "self defense", or "whatever". Bottom line is that we simply don't know. Those two words in your post were speculation, which is why I take issue with them.
The truth about this is, that Zimmerman is not unusual. How many murders have been committed since Martin was murdered? How many people have been murdered that will never get any attention by us? Why does this case get interest? Because of all the speculation, which I believe is counterproductive.
Post by
Adamsm
Because of all the speculation, which I believe is counterproductive.And I don't disagree about that.
Post by
MyTie
Because of all the speculation, which I believe is counterproductive.And I don't disagree about that.
I feel like a connection has been made.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Was he trespassing? I read that his father's fiance, where he was staying, lived the community. Also, I don't recall reading that he "matched the description" of someone who had broken in, only that they had had some break ins recently.
Post by
Monday
Also, I don't recall reading that he "matched the description" of someone who had broken in, only that they had had some break ins recently.
I heard that on a non-Fox News national station, but for the life of me, I can't remember which one >.>
I'll see if I can track it down tomorrow.
Post by
Squishalot
@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Possibly, which is why Zimmerman was released (on his self-defence claim). But, for what it's worth, the tone of your comments have suggested that Martin was guilty, and that Zimmerman doesn't deserve the negative feedback he's been receiving.
'Innocent until proven guilty' is not quite an accurate phrase. The correct phrase should be 'not guilty until proven guilty'. Zimmerman is not necessarily innocent.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The legal definition in this country is specifically "presumed innocent until proven guilty," so MyTie's wording is correct. What that discounts, though, is the idea that the way that the law is written is what people are having an issue with. If it is legal in a country to rape your wife, for example, then the "he's innocent until the courts prove him guilty" argument has no merit, because even if he did it the courts wouldn't take up the case, because even if we think it's morally wrong, the courts don't recognize it as legally wrong.
In this case, we're arguing about the morality of his actions, even if they are supported by this "stand your ground" principle, and by extension we're arguing the morality of the law itself. In those cases, you can't measure the problems of a law by whether or not it's legal, because that's circular logic. So it actually does have to be weighed on available evidence and not what the courts decide, because the courts are bound by the law and we're debating whether the law should exist at all, or should exist in this form.
Also, I have a problem with the idea that, if you kill someone, the law has the burden of proof to show you shouldn't have done it, rather than you having the burden of proof that you should have done it. MyTie is upset that people are attributing reasons to the shooting that no one knows but Zimmerman. I'm upset because I don't feel that "No one else saw, so we have to take Zimmerman at his word" is a good way to go about murder investigations. If he shot someone, and we can prove it, then it is his burden to show it's justified. Because the "his word against mine" principle doesn't work when one of the parties is dead, and you can't just let people have a license to kill each other. But the cops stated that they didn't take him into custody because they couldn't prove it wasn't self defense.
It's completely fair for Adams to argue that, based on the evidence that has been released, he doesn't think that the law is right in protecting Zimmerman. Based on the actual evidence- a.k.a. the phone calls, the coroner's report, the witness statements that were released, I don't think that this case would have been declared self-defense other than because of that flimsy "stand your ground" clause (which I don't think even applies here). And I think that's wrong. And I take exception with a law that allows that because it's overly broadly worded and permissive. And I can't base that decision on what the courts decide in terms of innocence or guilt, because I believe that the tool that they're measuring it by is broken.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The legal definition in this country is specifically "presumed innocent until proven guilty," so MyTie's wording is correct. What that discounts, though, is the idea that the way that the law is written is what people are having an issue with.
I'm fairly sure the point he was making is that innocent implies he's done nothing wrong, but not guilty means he isn't legally culpable for that crime. It's the same reason verdicts are guilty or not guilty rather than guilty or innocent.
A jury doesn't produce a verdict of "innocent" because at that point, the defendant is already presumed to be innocent. The jury produces "not guilty" to show that a guilt was not sufficiently proven by the government.
The unjust actions of the masses, in mass speculation are just part of the problem I see. At this point, Zimmerman has been "convicted in the eyes of the public" by an array of things. Whether he is guilty or not, this will influence the opinion of a future jury, and make things harder for him, unjustly.
My main problem I have with all this is the accusations of racism, without any merit. I don't like a society that victimizes some groups of its people. I don't like that portrayal. I have been labeled as a racist before. It doesn't feel good, especially when I have no racial inclinations. I think if there is no difinitive proof of racism, society itself should be slower to jump to those conclusions. When I started seeing those "jumps", I start to see all the other "jumps" people make.
Post by
MyTie
Here is a news article that reflects
my sentiment
about the Martin case.
I particuarly would like to point to those statistics. Later I'll come up with more statistics about black/white crime. In the US, a white is more likely to be murdered by a black than vice versa, by a large margin.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I haven't really gotten involved in the whole "it was race related" argument, because I don't know, and I don't know that there's enough evidence to even make a guess about that aspect.
I do think that it's a little weird to call the cops because you see someone you don't know on your street, and I think it's really strange that you would chase after someone who you didn't know and interrogate them for being in your neighborhood, but he might have just been the kind of guy who harassed anyone who was walking around at night. Not racist necessarily, but I don't think that's "normal" behavior, even for a neighborhood watchman. Normally you keep an eye out for crime, and maybe, just maybe, call the cops in case someone might commit a crime, but to go and make a citizen's arrest, or attempt a confrontation (even a non-violent one) with someone just because they're in your neighborhood and you don't know them, is strange. It may have been racially motivated, it may have been him being paranoid, it may have been him trying to throw his weight around- all of those are possibilities.
What frustrates me with this case, is that regardless of how it happened, he bears some responsibility for instigating the incident. The facts that I base this on are not in dispute. His call, and his words, confirm that he didn't see the kid actually do anything. His words confirm that he was actually chasing him. Even if you don't add any of the outside witness statements, don't try to analyze the later part of his conversation for what it indicates rather than what is said, and don't try to think about whether or not his story makes sense in terms of what a human response would be to what he was doing, just the things that he admitted make him at the very least partially at fault. I suspect he's much more at fault, but what makes me really angry is that HE said that he did things that were completely unwarranted, and that caused the altercation.
It's like when Michael Jackson admitted on the stand to serving alcohol to a minor, but was found not guilty of that charge, or when Casey Anthony admitted that the left her toddler alone and she drowned because she was unsupervised. They admitted something that should carry criminal weight, but for some reason that I cannot grasp, people are giving them a pass on that.
Regardless of if you believe Zimmerman's story 100% and think he was the least racist person in the world, he still chased someone down, in the dark, because he didn't like how he looked, and that person ended up dead as a result of the confrontation Zimmerman created. Even if they prove no other criminal elements of this case, the information he already admitted to should carry some criminal weight.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.