Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Phatscotty]

Fitz, your information is so bunk, and you don't even know it. ALL of it. Everything you said there is complete bullshit, and easily proven repeatedly to be so.

This about sums up Fitz's perspective

[thegreekdog]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

I hear what you're saying, and its possible you are right, but if you could wipe out all race induced crimes, do you honestly think the crime rate would stay the same, and people would just be attacked randomly just as much?

And for the record, I dont even know how Id answer that without some thought.

No, I don't believe the crime rate would stay the same (or go down). I think the best way to deal with race is to not call negative attention to it. Obviously, I need to think about it some more.

I dont know, I am almost sure the areas with less racial tension would have less crime. I realize that is racist on some level as well, though not towards any given race as much as the human being who clearly, can become racist and act on it, often, and tragically, violently.

I certainly accept that its possible that not calling as much attention to race might be the best way to do it, but in all fairness, I think thats what they used to do, which almost undoubtedly, allowed more hate crimes to go unpunished.

I think that you are perhaps ignoring the fact that on some level, showing people that hate crimes are bad, is an education of sorts. Certainly, in history, crimes against entire races were not even considered crimes, and making them crimes was obviously the only way to ever stop them.

I believe your theory, is almost based on the hope that people are not racist anymore and are not actually acting out on their hatred as much as they do.....and perhaps, because I suspect you cant imagine doing something like that yourself.

Okay, let's back up. Hate crimes didn't go unpunished. They just weren't called hate crimes and didn't carry extra punishment. If someone killed someone else (and was found guilty) the murderer was convicted of murder, regardless of whether motivated by racial hatred or not. I really don't want to operate under the assumption that hate crimes would otherwise go unpunished. It's politcking, frankly.

People should know that crimes against people are bad, not that it's worse if it's against a particular race. This probably seems like wishful thinking, but it's really not. I suspect (and can find out) that people continue to commit crimes against other people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, regarldess of whether it is labelled a hate crime or not. And I do suspect racial and sexual orientation based crimes are down. I believe this is because of changing culture (e.g. the acception of black culture by whites; the acception of gays through television shows, etc.). I don't think hate crimes are down because of hate crime legislation (although I'm sure someone will post something about a correlation).

Further, people aren't deterred from committing an act simply because it's criminal (whether that's smoking pot or murder). Otherwise, we wouldn't have a nice sized prison population. And I don't think people are deterred from committing a hate crime simply because it carries a label and a stiffer sentence.

[AAFitz]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

So he just followed him? He didnt confront him in any way or threaten him? There's no way Martin was threatened or acting in self defense?

Seriously, come on...Youre just lying if you can't see how someone might get more than nervous in that situation and make the first move. He was actually wrong to in this case, but not as wrong as Zimmerman was, because he was acting against the advice of law enforcement, who all but explained to him that it was a bad idea. Its just a shame they didnt convince him, but I think its pretty clear Zimmerman was the type that was going to ignore them anyways.

[Phatscotty]

no. You are lying. Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. Only people who don't know the information think that, I think those are called 'useful idiots'. He did not act against advice of law enforcement, that is a lie. She didn't have to explain anything, nor did she have time, as Zimmerman immediately complied with the advise and stopped following.

You are the type that not only ignores the truth, but doesn't even want to know the truth because it is the opposite of what you want to believe.

[Phatscotty]

separately, wtf? How can a court prove someone had a gun pointed at them or not?

pics or it didn't happen

[thegreekdog]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

So he just followed him? He didnt confront him in any way or threaten him? There's no way Martin was threatened or acting in self defense?

Seriously, come on...Youre just lying if you can't see how someone might get more than nervous in that situation and make the first move. He was actually wrong to in this case, but not as wrong as Zimmerman was, because he was acting against the advice of law enforcement, who all but explained to him that it was a bad idea. Its just a shame they didnt convince him, but I think its pretty clear Zimmerman was the type that was going to ignore them anyways.

Dude, we covered this 20 pages ago. Martin was on his cell phone with his girlfriend. Some dude is following him. Martin could have done nothing, run away, called the police, confronted Zimmerman verbally, or confronted Zimmerman physically. He chose to confront Zimmerman physically. Most reasonable people would not have made that choice. For example, I would have called the police or confronted Zimmerman verbally. Likely the latter since I wouldn't have known the dude had a gun.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was right to follow Martin. I suspect Zimmerman is being punished for his bad decisions in many ways, and rightfully so. I'm just saying we need to stop defending what Martin did like he was some innocent fucking kid. He made a bad decision that most reasonable people would not have made and, while I sympathize that he was shot and killed for making a poor decision, it was something he could have and should avoided.

And since I said that like 12 times in this thread already, I'll leave it at that.

[john9blue]

Zimmerman already showed bad judgement by ignoring Police by continuing to stalk and approach Martin.

He knew he had a gun, so given this reckless act, it is clear he engaged martin enough to get him to use his fists.

Now, obviously I dont know what he did, or why Martin considered him a threat, but Zimmerman was a guy stupid enough to ignore police advice and get himself into a situation where someone died, so to call it a stretch that he caused the entire event is just ignoring the overall picture of the event.

As I said, I acknowledge that maybe Martin actually was crazy. Maybe, he was just walking around hoping some moron with a gun was going to just walk right up close enough for him to punch so he could do that....but all common sense and logic, tells me, it was Zimmerman that foolishly confronted him, and whether purposefully, or unwittingly threatened Martin, to where Martin felt he had to protect himself. He was a young enough kid, that having a strange man follow him in a car could honestly be considered enough of a threat as is.

Mostly, it all comes down to Zimmmerman ignoring professional advice from professional law enforcement officials.

They said don't do it, he ignore that and because of that, a kid is dead. Its about the same as ignoring a cop's traffic signals and running someone over as a result.

If you cant see, that Zimmerman, was an absolute moron in this situation, and that he had lots of options that would have resulted in a person being alive, then you really either are stupid, or I guess in your case, just dont care, because as you said, hes probably better off now anyways.

Seriously, by the way....what the f*ck is wrong with you?

now, i haven't personally seen anyone being threatened at gunpoint, but i have never, ever heard of an unarmed person choosing "fight" over "flight" when a gun is pointed at them. that shit only happens in superhero movies. you're clawing for an explanation that almost certainly isn't true.

also, nothing is wrong with me, i just don't have the same regard for societal laws and morals that most other people do, which is perfectly reasonable considering the kind of person that i am. you probably think our society is better off without the koch brothers, but you don't see me calling you a monster, even if you were as honest as me and were willing to admit that they would be better off dead.

[AAFitz]

Okay, let's back up. Hate crimes didn't go unpunished. They just weren't called hate crimes and didn't carry extra punishment. If someone killed someone else (and was found guilty) the murderer was convicted of murder, regardless of whether motivated by racial hatred or not. I really don't want to operate under the assumption that hate crimes would otherwise go unpunished. It's politcking, frankly.

People should know that crimes against people are bad, not that it's worse if it's against a particular race. This probably seems like wishful thinking, but it's really not. I suspect (and can find out) that people continue to commit crimes against other people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, regarldess of whether it is labelled a hate crime or not. And I do suspect racial and sexual orientation based crimes are down. I believe this is because of changing culture (e.g. the acception of black culture by whites; the acception of gays through television shows, etc.). I don't think hate crimes are down because of hate crime legislation (although I'm sure someone will post something about a correlation).

Further, people aren't deterred from committing an act simply because it's criminal (whether that's smoking pot or murder). Otherwise, we wouldn't have a nice sized prison population. And I don't think people are deterred from committing a hate crime simply because it carries a label and a stiffer sentence.

There's a difference between being unpunished, and differently punished. I cant fathom that you dont believe there were quite a few cases in the past where white vs minority were punished less severely, especially in some regions of the country?

I agree that decision making, especially related to crime is complex and no one factor may or may not allow a crime to happen, but you are just guessing about the decision making of a racist criminal capable of assault, battery or murder, and I suggest, you probably aren't qualified to make that guess as to their decision making process...and I mean that as a compliment.

For the most part, real statistics are the only way to know the effectiveness of such laws. Until then, I dont think the racist attackers are being treated unfairly for their crimes. At worst, the other criminals are perhaps getting off too easy. Or are you suggesting the sentences for assault and battery are too severe?

[mrswdk]

The question for the people arguing for Zimmerman's conviction would be: what do you know that a bunch of lawyers, a judge and a jury who spent a long time working on this case didn't?

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

Well, from what I recall, there was this study which compared homicide rates between the UK and the US in terms of prison sentences. IIRC, the UK average sentence was 12 years for murder while the US was much higher (definitely greater than 12, probably around 18 or 20?), yet the either the homicide rates didn't differ greatly, or the UK was slightly better.

I don't remember how the study controlled for relevant variables, but if what I recall is true, then it seems that greater prison sentences don't really reduce crime--past 12 years or so.

But what about less serious crimes with their lesser prison times? I'm not sure, but it's very likely that more pertinent studies have been done regarding hate crime laws and effectiveness. I'd expect similar outcomes.

[AAFitz]

Zimmerman already showed bad judgement by ignoring Police by continuing to stalk and approach Martin.

He knew he had a gun, so given this reckless act, it is clear he engaged martin enough to get him to use his fists.

Now, obviously I dont know what he did, or why Martin considered him a threat, but Zimmerman was a guy stupid enough to ignore police advice and get himself into a situation where someone died, so to call it a stretch that he caused the entire event is just ignoring the overall picture of the event.

As I said, I acknowledge that maybe Martin actually was crazy. Maybe, he was just walking around hoping some moron with a gun was going to just walk right up close enough for him to punch so he could do that....but all common sense and logic, tells me, it was Zimmerman that foolishly confronted him, and whether purposefully, or unwittingly threatened Martin, to where Martin felt he had to protect himself. He was a young enough kid, that having a strange man follow him in a car could honestly be considered enough of a threat as is.

Mostly, it all comes down to Zimmmerman ignoring professional advice from professional law enforcement officials.

They said don't do it, he ignore that and because of that, a kid is dead. Its about the same as ignoring a cop's traffic signals and running someone over as a result.

If you cant see, that Zimmerman, was an absolute moron in this situation, and that he had lots of options that would have resulted in a person being alive, then you really either are stupid, or I guess in your case, just dont care, because as you said, hes probably better off now anyways.

Seriously, by the way....what the f*ck is wrong with you?

now, i haven't personally seen anyone being threatened at gunpoint, but i have never, ever heard of an unarmed person choosing "fight" over "flight" when a gun is pointed at them. that shit only happens in superhero movies. you're clawing for an explanation that almost certainly isn't true.

also, nothing is wrong with me, i just don't have the same regard for societal laws and morals that most other people do, which is perfectly reasonable considering the kind of person that i am. you probably think our society is better off without the koch brothers, but you don't see me calling you a monster, even if you were as honest as me and were willing to admit that they would be better off dead.

I never said it was at gunpoint. In fact, its been pointed out that martin absolutely did not know he had a gun. The fact that Zimmerman knew he had a gun though is relevant, because I doubt the pussy would have gotten within 50 feet of the guy otherwise. He didnt even get in one punch, against a kid. And now he may very well have had to pull a gun out against his girlfriend....allegedly.... He hid behind a gun, ignored police and created an entire altercation that never had to be, and now a kid is dead.

And suggesting I randomly want the Koch brothers dead, kind of more goes to show that there is something actually wrong with you, just so you know. Just ask a shrink for fucks sake, or a priest or someone man.

[AAFitz]

The question for the people arguing for Zimmerman's conviction would be: what do you know that a bunch of lawyers, a judge and a jury who spent a long time working on this case didn't?

Well, to be honest, legally, I might very well agree with the jury that he was legally not able to be guilty, but that would not change my opinion, that he actually is guilty in a very real way.

[AAFitz]

fitz, what exactly do you think zimmerman did that warranted being thrown to the ground and punched in the face?

He followed someone. That's my natural reaction when someone follows me.

Oh wait, I think I talked about that 20 pages ago and a year ago.

So he just followed him? He didnt confront him in any way or threaten him? There's no way Martin was threatened or acting in self defense?

Seriously, come on...Youre just lying if you can't see how someone might get more than nervous in that situation and make the first move. He was actually wrong to in this case, but not as wrong as Zimmerman was, because he was acting against the advice of law enforcement, who all but explained to him that it was a bad idea. Its just a shame they didnt convince him, but I think its pretty clear Zimmerman was the type that was going to ignore them anyways.

Dude, we covered this 20 pages ago. Martin was on his cell phone with his girlfriend. Some dude is following him. Martin could have done nothing, run away, called the police, confronted Zimmerman verbally, or confronted Zimmerman physically. He chose to confront Zimmerman physically. Most reasonable people would not have made that choice. For example, I would have called the police or confronted Zimmerman verbally. Likely the latter since I wouldn't have known the dude had a gun.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was right to follow Martin. I suspect Zimmerman is being punished for his bad decisions in many ways, and rightfully so. I'm just saying we need to stop defending what Martin did like he was some innocent fucking kid. He made a bad decision that most reasonable people would not have made and, while I sympathize that he was shot and killed for making a poor decision, it was something he could have and should avoided.

And since I said that like 12 times in this thread already, I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, but I mean....this is all reasonable so Im not going to argue this, because its no fun, and the fight/flight decision is so quick and the whole thing unfolded so quickly, obviously no one knows exactly what happened, and clearly bad decisions were made by all. I still think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, but I absolutely accept that if I was in the entire trial, I might not.

You took all the fun out of this...

[Phatscotty]

yeah, I didn't think you would respond to mine (the one about the lies)

[AAFitz]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

Well, from what I recall, there was this study which compared homicide rates between the UK and the US in terms of prison sentences. IIRC, the UK average sentence was 12 years for murder while the US was much higher (definitely greater than 12, probably around 18 or 20?), yet the either the homicide rates didn't differ greatly, or the UK was slightly better.

I don't remember how the study controlled for relevant variables, but if what I recall is true, then it seems that greater prison sentences don't really reduce crime--past 12 years or so.

But what about less serious crimes with their lesser prison times? I'm not sure, but it's very likely that more pertinent studies have been done regarding hate crime laws and effectiveness. I'd expect similar outcomes.

[AAFitz]

Regarding hate crime laws, we should be considering how responsive criminals are to additional jail time. Does adding on the risk of incurring 3-5 years really deter them more effectively, hardly at all, or not at all?

Great question. What do you think?

Well, from what I recall, there was this study which compared homicide rates between the UK and the US in terms of prison sentences. IIRC, the UK average sentence was 12 years for murder while the US was much higher (definitely greater than 12, probably around 18 or 20?), yet the either the homicide rates didn't differ greatly, or the UK was slightly better.

I don't remember how the study controlled for relevant variables, but if what I recall is true, then it seems that greater prison sentences don't really reduce crime--past 12 years or so.

But what about less serious crimes with their lesser prison times? I'm not sure, but it's very likely that more pertinent studies have been done regarding hate crime laws and effectiveness. I'd expect similar outcomes.

I think its possible that homicide is different than assault and battery though. When you commit homicide, I have to assume you are assuming your gone forever, and the idea of 6 years changing that couldnt possibly factor in. Also, its an average, and I doubt many people even know the average time served for homicide.

However, when you get into lesser crimes, you instinctively know you might serve a little time if nailed for assault and battery, but I suspect, many, not all, could very well be deterred from hate crime, at least in some cases, because it does have the publicized effect of making you know its more time. Again, I have to assume some group going out bashing a minority group isnt exactly reading the current average sentences, but absolutely have heard that hate crime is taken pretty seriously and know it comes with a stiffer sentence. I think the numbers would certainly be different than the homicide numbers, but how much so I guess remains to be seen. I also think the deterrent effect, would be more than TGD's suggested "hate crime increase" for notoriety. No doubt in some cases, he's right, but overall, I think the deterrent is more probable.

[AAFitz]

separately, wtf? How can a court prove someone had a gun pointed at them or not?

pics or it didn't happen

never said it did happen. I just said he had a gun, I didnt say Martin knew he did.

It is the fact that Zimmerman knew he had a gun that suggests how he would act.

[Phatscotty]

separately, wtf? How can a court prove someone had a gun pointed at them or not?

pics or it didn't happen

never said it did happen. I just said he had a gun, I didnt say Martin knew he did.

It is the fact that Zimmerman knew he had a gun that suggests how he would act.

This post is about the latest charges, about pointing a gun at his girlfriend.

It's the other post I say you are afraid to confront, about following/not following advice of police dispatcher

[AAFitz]

separately, wtf? How can a court prove someone had a gun pointed at them or not?

pics or it didn't happen

never said it did happen. I just said he had a gun, I didnt say Martin knew he did.

It is the fact that Zimmerman knew he had a gun that suggests how he would act.

I'm talking about the latest charges, about pointing a gun at his girlfriend.

and it's the other post I accuse you of dodging, about following/not following advice of police dispatcher

And Im not dodging it, the way you dodged my questions....ive been answering question after question and actually didnt see it....

But are you saying, that you believe, Zimmerman, stopped following Martin after getting off the phone with the cops?

And that after chasing him, Martin turned around at that moment and then came after him?

Anyways, its been fun. I meant to stop before midnight but was weak....Im sure it looks like a cop out...but Im actually done with this, and i thank you for your many, contradictory statements and clear ignorance of some key legal terms...it was simply fun watching you do it and then claiming victory the whole time. phun phun phun.

[Phatscotty]

I'm saying, as it crystal clear on the 911 tape the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him, and Zimmerman said "okay" and he stopped.

[AAFitz]

I'm saying, as it crystal clear on the 911 tape the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him, and Zimmerman said "okay" and he stopped.

He said okay....how do you know he stopped exactly where he was?

anyways...I cant believe I started again....good luck with your quest my friend, I hope you get exactly what you deserve in every way.

[Phatscotty]

I'm saying, as it crystal clear on the 911 tape the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him, and Zimmerman said "okay" and he stopped.

He said okay....how do you know he stopped exactly where he was?

anyways...I cant believe I started again....good luck with your quest my friend, I hope you get exactly what you deserve in every way.

I know, it's on the unedited 911 tape, which you obviously have not listened to, yet base your entire tirade on.

And that's one heck of a question for you to even ask me, given you are the one going on for pages about how you know that he did not stop, and even say that is a reason for Trayvon to defend himself, except that didn't happen. Zimmerman did stop. I know the same way you know, but with 100% more evidence against what you imagine happened, based on a grade A first class edit&smear job.

To be fair, I don't blame you 100%, the media was lying about it from the start, as this thread documented extremely well. Many people were so misinformed, it had all the ingredients. But that is also the danger is living in a bubble . If all you gather from whatever keeps you informed is still the edited version of the 911 tape, it means you don't stray from the racebait editing galore sources, and what specific source you inform from, and that it's the only source.

[john9blue]

I never said it was at gunpoint. In fact, its been pointed out that martin absolutely did not know he had a gun. The fact that Zimmerman knew he had a gun though is relevant, because I doubt the pussy would have gotten within 50 feet of the guy otherwise. He didnt even get in one punch, against a kid. And now he may very well have had to pull a gun out against his girlfriend....allegedly.... He hid behind a gun, ignored police and created an entire altercation that never had to be, and now a kid is dead.

And suggesting I randomly want the Koch brothers dead, kind of more goes to show that there is something actually wrong with you, just so you know. Just ask a shrink for fucks sake, or a priest or someone man.

he didn't get in one punch because he wasn't looking for a fight. he carried a gun for defense, not because he enjoys shooting people. martin initiated it and probably caught him by surprise.

do you believe that the koch brothers are making the world a worse place? if so, why wouldn't you rather live in a world without them?

[oVo]

he didn't get in one punch because he wasn't looking for a fight. he carried a gun for defense, not because he enjoys shooting people. martin initiated it and probably caught him by surprise.

You don't know any of that as fact. None. Zip. Zero.

[Phatscotty]

he didn't get in one punch because he wasn't looking for a fight. he carried a gun for defense, not because he enjoys shooting people. martin initiated it and probably caught him by surprise.

You don't know any of that as fact. None. Zip. Zero.

We know it's extremely likely. He didn't say it was a fact. What is the point of pointing out something isn't a fact when someone didn't even try to say it was.

Pre-emptively defensive? zip, zero, nodda.