Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Watch the local news, or read a internet forum, all that is being discussed by most is stand your ground, like this thread.
Mr. Stevie wonder said he wouldn't play in any state with stand your ground when in reality it had little to do with Zimmerman's aquittal
Come on dude, quit making ad homonym attacks against straw men. If you support Stand Your Ground laws I'd love to hear why. But if you want you spout some bullsh*t about how "some people" are "wrong" about facts about a case that is only one small part of the issue we're discussing, you're dodging the issue.
Do you think people should be allowed to use deadly force against an agressor when there are reasonable non-lethal means available for personal protection?
All this stuff you brought up about whether or not Zimmerman brought up stand your ground in trial or whether stand your ground affects police work in Tennessee is completely beside the point in my mind. Hell, I'd much rather have a discussion about the broad point, which is this: Should we as a society find it legally and morally acceptable for citizens to act as vigilante police when there is no immediate threat to anyone's person or property? What's your opinion? I say absolutely not.
When you are born in America, or in any society, you give up certain rights for the public good. In America, you give up those freedoms but are allowed a say in your welfare by having the right to vote in legislation, for your local police force, for your DA, judges, etc.* I'm happy to give up some of those rights in exchange for my democratic input. But I want my laws to be decided by legislature, and I want my guilt or innocence regarding those laws and the corresponding punishment to be decided by a jury of my peers. That's my Constitutional right. I find it completely unacceptable that many states in this country give armed citizens the ability to serve as judge jury and executioner, not based on whether such lethal force is reasonably necessary to protect oneself, but whether or not they meet certain criteria divorced of the situation they were in.
Please, tell me what you think about any of the things I just said, but spare me the bullsh*t about "the local news" or what your opinion about the Zimmerman trial is.
*Leaving aside the fact that there are still organized efforts to disenfranchise people in this country based on their skin tone or political affiliation.
Ugh, you're putting words in my mouth.
1. Stand your ground doesn't do that, it allows that. No, I think if stand your ground lasts as a law, the law should be changed, especially to make sure police gather evidence at the initial scene. But deadly force should be the last option.
2. I can tell you, if my house is broken into at night, law or not, I'll kill someone because I have two kids. And I'd sleep well at night knowing they broke into my house. I would never use a gun in my yard on some guy walking down the street.
I do not support what Zimmerman did. Following Martin, getting out of the car, confronting him. All of that makes for negligence. But a jury decided there was a reasonable doubt that martin was fighting Zimmerman before a gun was drawn, and that made for self defense. That's exactly what the jurors said, and they know a lot more then you or I do.
Again, if you think stand your ground had anything to do with this actual trial, or acquittal, then you're wrong. It was why Zimmerman wasn't initially arrested, but the trial and acquittal was not influenced by atandbyiur ground
I believe Mr. Wonder lives in a state with stand your ground laws.
He lives in Alpine, New Jersey and also has a home in California. Neither have stand your ground laws.
States Without Stand Your Ground Laws or Bills — though states with * still uphold the doctrine by court precedent (10)ArkansasCalifornia* (no legislated law, but has been upheld by the courts, making it a de factolaw)Colorado* (no legislated law, but has been upheld by the courts, making it a de factolaw)DelawareHawaiiMinnesota (was recently passed in both houses but vetoed by Governor Dayton)New JerseyNew Mexico (Bill was introduced in 2011 but not passed)
Edit: pardon my ignorance, I'm assuming this has something to do with that security guard killing a guy thing. My bad, I don't really follow American news.
Nah, it's partly my fault. I mistakenly assumed the original post made a mention of the trial but it doesn't. I figured that all the discussion that included Zimmerman would have tipped you off but sometimes I forget there are non-American's on here.
Yeah, my fault too. I didn't read the through the thread when I posted, so didn't see all the Zimmerman posts. I was more or less just responding to the OP.
This isn't accurate. And in Florida, Stand Your Ground laws are a defense against civil actions anyway.
Stand your ground wasn't used in the defense at all. The defense attorneys said it didn't apply to this case.
You're wrong. I could go into a long explanation about how defense attorneys don't use legal defenses until the prosecution brings up something applicable (which prosecutors are loath to do when obvious defenses exist), but this kinda covers it all.
Stand your ground wasn't used in the defense at all. The defense attorneys said it didn't apply to this case.
You're wrong. I could go into a long explanation about how defense attorneys don't use legal defenses until the prosecution brings up something applicable (which prosecutors are loath to do when obvious defenses exist), but this kinda covers it all.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but I want to flesh this one out.
The defense did not use it in their plea during the court case; but the more egregious issue is the processing by the police officers due to the presumed acceptance that Zimmerman was "standing his ground". This assumption lead to key elements of checking the background of the shooter to be passed over. Not only his own history of violent acts, and questionably racist statements; it also catalogs his lack of forethought and appreciation of vigilante justice. Also the forensics of the investigation was compromised -- no toxicology report on the Zimmerman; lack of proper questioning that night (for instance if you shot him with him on top of you; why was there no blood splatter on your shirt?)
It is clear from the juror who's going to spill her guts in a book, keeps calling him "George", as if she has a personal relationship with the guy: the prosecution did not control their narrative. Nor did they do due diligence when accepting jury members; all around disappointing resolution to the case and the FL legal system
Stevie has every right to play shows where he wants and to not play shows where he wants. It's his right as an artist. He isn't hurting for money or fame or fans.
But Had Zimmerman been convicted of something would Stevie still be against the stand your ground laws?
Stevie has every right to play shows where he wants and to not play shows where he wants. It's his right as an artist. He isn't hurting for money or fame or fans.
But Had Zimmerman been convicted of something would Stevie still be against the stand your ground laws?
Way to try and make a ham-fisted point by asking a question which is impossible to answer.
in fact it is possible to answer it by way of analyzing his actions before the verdict which did not include boycotts regarding this issue. this issue was still an issue before the verdict. in fact stevie could have boycotted the law once it became the issue with Martin's death. I merely mean to propose that the verdict not the law is the issue here, regardless of stevie's statements to the contrary. If he was so offended by the mere existence of the law that allowed this death to occur why not begin the boycott at that time over a year ago instead of right after the issuance of the verdict which acquitted the killer based on the jury's interpretation of the law.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 17, 2013 11:46:32 GMT -5
If he was so offended by the mere existence of the law that allowed this death to occur why not begin the boycott at that time over a year ago instead of right after the issuance of the verdict which acquitted the killer based on the jury's interpretation of the law.
Perhaps seeing news stories that involve the law informed him of something he wasn't totally aware about. You can be offended by something after it comes into existence if you weren't aware of it from the beginning. Sometimes it takes a little time to become informed and get passionate about something.
Way to try and make a ham-fisted point by asking a question which is impossible to answer.
in fact it is possible to answer it by way of analyzing his actions before the verdict which did not include boycotts regarding this issue. this issue was still an issue before the verdict. in fact stevie could have boycotted the law once it became the issue with Martin's death. I merely mean to propose that the verdict not the law is the issue here, regardless of stevie's statements to the contrary. If he was so offended by the mere existence of the law that allowed this death to occur why not begin the boycott at that time over a year ago instead of right after the issuance of the verdict which acquitted the killer based on the jury's interpretation of the law.
You do know that often we are not aware of laws in other states until faced with them in one way or another. And even if we are aware of the law we expect/hope that they will be enforced in a way that don't make us insane. I posted this in the Wire link but think y'all might find it interesting. Needless to say that Mr. Simon says this better than I ever could
You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 17, 2013 12:05:54 GMT -5
I get what Simon is saying and that he's speaking about a bigger issue at play than just one court case but he and many other news articles keep pointing out race and how "being white" helps you get away with stuff but Zimmerman is hispanic. And now CNN is calling him a "white hispanic" which just confuses me.
I get what Simon is saying and that he's speaking about a bigger issue at play than just one court case but he and many other news articles keep pointing out race and how "being white" helps you get away with stuff but Zimmerman is hispanic. And now CNN is calling him a "white hispanic" which just confuses me.
Zimmerman is half white half hispanic. People will tend to identify one rather than the other. Also, hispanic is a subset of the caucasian race, so they may be getting picky from an academic perspective.
why not begin the boycott at that time over a year ago instead of right after the issuance of the verdict which acquitted the killer based on the jury's interpretation of the law.
Maybe a protest after such a controversial acquittal would have a greater impact on the public.
I'm confused - are you suggesting some sort of ulterior motive on the part of Stevie? Are you suggesting that Stevie is "wrong" to be boycotting the Stand Your Ground legislation? What point are you trying to make?
I am not suggesting any ulterior motives at all. I am not suggesting that Stevie is wrong for boycotting as is his right. I agree with his right to boycott. I agree with his boycott as well for that matter, more power to him.
I am just saying that perhaps a conviction would not have resulted in a boycott. If that were the case the boycott is not the result of the law but of the acquittal. I am not suggesting that Stevie thought "if he gets acquitted I am boycotting that god forsaken state and any other with stand your ground laws." I believe this came up after the verdict. I am just saying he may not have been so adamant about it had Zimmerman been convicted of murder or even manslaughter. We won't ever know.
I don't agree with Zimmerman's actions at all, nor do I agree that a neighborhood watch should be armed. I feel that a stand your ground law should only apply to someone being innocently aggressed upon. I also feel that the burden of proof should be much higher in a public place or any place open to the public as opposed to a private home or place of business after hours.
Last Edit: Jul 17, 2013 12:15:39 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I get what Simon is saying and that he's speaking about a bigger issue at play than just one court case but he and many other news articles keep pointing out race and how "being white" helps you get away with stuff but Zimmerman is hispanic. And now CNN is calling him a "white hispanic" which just confuses me.
This is one of the few caveats of American experience that is not discussed, out of direct fear.
Black people know it as the African diaspora, but any group/race of people who have been effected by colonial empires, have large distinctions in what they deem as their history. If I'm not mistaken he is mixed, as well as yes, having a lighter shade of skin that is not associated with most would easily consider Latino or Hispanic. There are huge separations in the communities between South Americans, Mexicans, Cubans -- actual Spanish/Catlina/etc. ; yet we just call them Hispanic. Same goes for many Caribbean islands that are in between (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic); and African-Americans (which for instance, I do not see myself as: I'm the son of two direct Jamaican immigrants. Yes we are all from Africa; but we have no knowledge of our ancestry past a specific point in the late 19th century.) Too many these factors seem unimportant; but it is part of the make up of these cultures and communities.
To go further on topic to Zimmerman specifically, it does not seem like he identifies directly with that heritage, it is a label pushed on to him my the media constituency to "level the playing field". To indicate his racial influence must not be a factor in his decision making, but lo and behold, the man spoke openly and pathetically about Mexicans in his previous years. Call Americanized conservative rage or inter-racial hatred; but this is all like saying all black people love all groups of black people. It's historically untrue and to this day still lingers on. This is a main reason why in many nations, people bleach their skin, straighten their hair to death, and other methods to create the illusion of lighter skin and a skewed vision of beauty. The deepness of your color matters, and it is a worldwide issue not just American.
Last Edit: Jul 17, 2013 12:25:45 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
in fact it is possible to answer it by way of analyzing his actions before the verdict which did not include boycotts regarding this issue. this issue was still an issue before the verdict. in fact stevie could have boycotted the law once it became the issue with Martin's death. I merely mean to propose that the verdict not the law is the issue here, regardless of stevie's statements to the contrary. If he was so offended by the mere existence of the law that allowed this death to occur why not begin the boycott at that time over a year ago instead of right after the issuance of the verdict which acquitted the killer based on the jury's interpretation of the law.
No, it isn't. If you can tell me that you can accurately and adequately interpret how someone else (someone you don't know personally and have no special insight with) could respond to a hypothetical situation which will never occur, then I'm terrified for the safety of the planet Earth because you're obviously motherf*cking Jean Grey becoming Dark Phoenix. That's some bullsh*t.
Maybe he's only now learning the particulars of this law. There are plenty of people who I know personally who didn't follow this case that closely from the beginning, and therefore didn't learn the ins-and-outs until just before the verdict, or during the trial. Perhaps Stevie Wonder, what with being an international music star who spends all his time making music and touring, wasn't quite as up to date on what was going on with this case until the verdict came in and it became a worldwide headline?
You're absolutely right about that perhaps he did not know very much about the case or the law. and I do not have special access to Stevie Wonder's brain (I wish I did that would be awesome). Nor am a jean grey becoming dark phoenix (love the x-men reference). I was just wondering.
Someone who is a TN lawyer confirm this, but my reading of the law leads me to believe that if you're in your tent and a wook comes in looking to steal your beer, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Of course, guns are not allowed at Bonnaroo, but I know how we all feel about security enforcing those rules.
I just want to clarify: When I made this comment it, I thought it would be self-evident how ridiculous I think it is that you can kill someone for trying to steal beer out of your tent at Bonnaroo. I'm not sure that point got across, so, to be clear, it's f*cked up.
I get what Simon is saying and that he's speaking about a bigger issue at play than just one court case but he and many other news articles keep pointing out race and how "being white" helps you get away with stuff but Zimmerman is hispanic. And now CNN is calling him a "white hispanic" which just confuses me.
Zimmerman is half white half hispanic. People will tend to identify one rather than the other. Also, hispanic is a subset of the caucasian race, so they may be getting picky from an academic perspective.
Thanks for clearing that up. After I posted I started to look into the white hispanic thing and saw that it's a tricky subject that has confused people in the past. Also, I wasn't aware of Zimmerman being half white/half hispanic. As you can see I'm not as informed as some others are about many of the details
I am just saying that perhaps a conviction would not have resulted in a boycott. If that were the case the boycott is not the result of the law but of the acquittal. I am not suggesting that Stevie thought "if he gets acquitted I am boycotting that god forsaken state and any other with stand your ground laws." I believe this came up after the verdict. I am just saying he may not have been so adamant about it had Zimmerman been convicted of murder or even manslaughter. We won't ever know.
You're right, Stevie Wonder (and everyone else on the planet with even a shred of rational thought and compassion) might not have been so pissed about Florida's wacky OK Corral laws if that fleshy pud Zimmermann had been convicted. You know why? Because then, there would have at least been SOME hope that even given the insane law presently on the books, people still held enough intelligence in their addled heads to look at these facts with a discerning eye and realize that this be-chinned motherf*cker stalked and aggressively confronted a teenage kid, got scared when this kid fought back, and shot him out of cowardice.
This sounds a bit like an advocation for a jury to disregard law. Your assumption that they are addle headed or lack intelligence speaks more to your lack or a discerning eye than theirs. I'm frankly a bit shocked to hear that type of rhetoric from a lawyer. Aren't you guys supposed to be our advocates for the law not the disregarding of the law?
You're right, Stevie Wonder (and everyone else on the planet with even a shred of rational thought and compassion) might not have been so pissed about Florida's wacky OK Corral laws if that fleshy pud Zimmermann had been convicted. You know why? Because then, there would have at least been SOME hope that even given the insane law presently on the books, people still held enough intelligence in their addled heads to look at these facts with a discerning eye and realize that this be-chinned motherf*cker stalked and aggressively confronted a teenage kid, got scared when this kid fought back, and shot him out of cowardice.
This sounds a bit like an advocation for a jury to disregard law. Your assumption that they are addle headed or lack intelligence speaks more to your lack or a discerning eye than theirs. I'm frankly a bit shocked to hear that type of rhetoric from a lawyer. Aren't you guys supposed to be our advocates for the law not the disregarding of the law?
Is your present stance that all lawyers everywhere have to blindly defend the law?
Why would anyone want to turn normal citizens into victims? I don't care if I ever see Stevie or anyone else again over my right to defend myself from harm. I wouldn't care what the law was, if someone was trying to severely injure or kill me and I had the ability to injure or kill them rather than being the victim I'd be the aggressor every single time. For the life of me I can't understand the mindset that everyone should be legally required to run from criminals. Bye, bye Stevie. Glad I got to see you before you lost your mind, I guess he can just go back to singing the praises of dead pedophiles.
Oh oh, so you're the type of person I haven't been seeing on my facebook feed.
You're right, Stevie Wonder (and everyone else on the planet with even a shred of rational thought and compassion) might not have been so pissed about Florida's wacky OK Corral laws if that fleshy pud Zimmermann had been convicted. You know why? Because then, there would have at least been SOME hope that even given the insane law presently on the books, people still held enough intelligence in their addled heads to look at these facts with a discerning eye and realize that this be-chinned motherf*cker stalked and aggressively confronted a teenage kid, got scared when this kid fought back, and shot him out of cowardice.
This sounds a bit like an advocation for a jury to disregard law. Your assumption that they are addle headed or lack intelligence speaks more to your lack or a discerning eye than theirs. I'm frankly a bit shocked to hear that type of rhetoric from a lawyer. Aren't you guys supposed to be our advocates for the law not the disregarding of the law?
As an attorney, I consider myself a zealous advocate of the right of an unarmed teenager to go to buy candy and walk home without being stalked and killed by an armed vigilante. You disagree, and frankly, I'm a bit shocked.
This sounds a bit like an advocation for a jury to disregard law. Your assumption that they are addle headed or lack intelligence speaks more to your lack or a discerning eye than theirs. I'm frankly a bit shocked to hear that type of rhetoric from a lawyer. Aren't you guys supposed to be our advocates for the law not the disregarding of the law?
As an attorney, I consider myself a zealous advocate of the right of an unarmed teenager to go to buy candy and walk home without being stalked and killed by an armed vigilante. You disagree, and frankly, I'm a bit shocked.
We've discussed this for the better part of two days and if you still can't comprehend that I don't have a problem with "an unarmed teenager to go to buy candy and walk home without being stalked and killed by an armed vigilante". No matter how many times you say I disagree it doesn't make it true.
