[Robinski]

QUOTE (08LasVenturas @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 15:39)

By all means wearing a hoodie or looking suspicious does NOT justify him shooting. But the way Geraldo worded his statement made it sound as if he said "He deserved to be killed because he was wearing a hoodie". In reality, he was most likely addressing how kids, especially minority youth, should be careful of the way they dress so that they don't look suspicious. However, most of America didn't really think about that so they just jumped down his throat about it. Yes, maybe Geraldo should've worded it differently, but he has a good point.

It's exactly, and I mean exactly, this train of thought that blames rape victims for "dressing provocatively". You aren't "asking for trouble" if you're wearing a hoodie any more than you are wearing a short skirt.

I shouldn't have to change who I am and how I dress because there are terrible people in the world.

This post has been edited by Robinski on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 15:47

[08LasVenturas]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 11:44)

It's exactly, and I mean exactly, this train of thought that blames rapes victims for "dressing provocatively". I shouldn't have to change who I am and how I dress because there are terrible people in the world.

That is very true. It doesn't justify it at all, but people need to be careful, unfortunately. If a young woman walks into a college frat party wearing only a bikini, she shouldn't be surprised if guys whistle at her or try to put moves on her. Just like if someone walks through a predominantly black neighborhood wearing a Klan outfit, he shouldn't be surprised if he gets shot.

I know, blaming a hoodie for getting shot is a little bit drastic, but sometimes you just have to be street smart. Geraldo just kind of butchered his example, I mean when I'm wearing a hoodie and sweatpants walking down my street at night, I don't expect to be followed and killed, but I wouldn't be surprised if a neighbor said "ugh this kid's probably here to buy weed" or something like that. It wouldn't necessarily get you killed, but people will make judgments.

[Otter]

You shouldn't have to - but perhaps you'd be wise to? I mean, I'm sure this may come as a shock to you guys, but I can be a cocky motherf*cker. Especially after a few beers. I make an active effort to avoid places where the ratio of meatheads to dandies is way out of my favor - even if I really like the place.

This is not to blame the victim in the slightest. It's just to suggest that one comes to grips with his or her surroundings. There are terrible people in the world; you're not making a martyr of yourself if you fall afoul of them. You're simply being victimized.

You should be able to walk down the street in your hoodie. You should be able to hold hands with your gay boyfriend. You should be able to proudly wear purple when the local gang color is red. You should be able to tattoo a unicorn f*cking a narwhal on your back. But you're not always wise to. There comes a point where you've got to flip a switch in your head from "stubbornly defiant" to "I'd rather live past 30".

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 11:54)

What an absurd law. I believe strongly that the onus should be on the shooter to demonstrate their innocence, not have it presumed if nothing comes to light suggesting they did not act in self defense.

How does one prove their innocence? Do they need to carry a camera everywhere to document the mugging or rape as it happens? While the law was likely abused in this particular incidence, I agree with the law on principle.

If every person who defended themselves (with deadly force or not) had to either prove their innocence or be assumed guilty and thrown in jail, you would essentially nullify the right of self defense (and the Due Process clause in the 5th amendment.)

[Robinski]

Oh yeah I specifically chose "shouldn't" over "won't". I sure as hell won't wear my skinny jeans and leather boots when I got to the local chav nightclub, 'cos I'd get my head kicked in. I kind of missed out my whole point actually when I posted (bit of an oversight admittedly). What I meant was that it's not something someone who is a media personality should be espousing. Just imagine if someone had said that women shouldn't dress "provactively" if they didn't want to get raped, it'd be the same thing.

Yeah, life is unfair and a lot of the time you do have to bend yourself to society's will, but you shouldn't have to, and this guy just reinforces that stance.

E: It might also boil down to me just being a self-righteous 19yo, I'm sure my views will change as I age.

This post has been edited by Robinski on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 16:14

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 17:01)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 11:54) What an absurd law. I believe strongly that the onus should be on the shooter to demonstrate their innocence, not have it presumed if nothing comes to light suggesting they did not act in self defense. How does one prove their innocence? Do they need to carry a camera everywhere to document the mugging or rape as it happens? While the law was likely abused in this particular incidence, I agree with the law on principle. If every person who defended themselves (with deadly force or not) had to either prove their innocence or be assumed guilty and thrown in jail, you would essentially nullify the right of self defense (and the Due Process clause in the 5th amendment.)

I said "demonstrate", not "prove". Much can be done to effectively map out the circumstances of a crime, even if there are no witnesses. If the story told by an individual who does kill in self-defence is deemed believable in light of the evidence, then it's perfectly acceptable, but the incident at least needs to be properly investigated, not just have a presumption of innocence derived entirely from the statement of the individual involved, which is to all intents and purposes what appears to have happened here.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 16:33)

I said "demonstrate", not "prove". Much can be done to effectively map out the circumstances of a crime, even if there are no witnesses. If the story told by an individual who does kill in self-defence is deemed believable in light of the evidence, then it's perfectly acceptable, but the incident at least needs to be properly investigated, not just have a presumption of innocence derived entirely from the statement of the individual involved, which is to all intents and purposes what appears to have happened here.

I agree that the police should have done way more investigating, but that's the fault of the police department, not the "stand your ground" laws. To me, the problems with this case are a terrible investigation by the police, not the self defense law in question. Had the police been more investigative, this law wouldn't be an issue because we would have a more definitive answer as to whether the guy acted in self defense or not.

[lil weasel]

The Police don't like 'defence' laws.
I imagine they are 'doing' what they can to undermine it. When the public cries for a change that will suit the Police powers fine.

Florida Statutes 876.12 - Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way
No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.

s. 2, ch. 26542, 1951.



This post has been edited by lil weasel on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 19:47

[lil weasel]

<Error>

[Robinski]

Halloween must be a right laugh in Florida.

Is that the entirety of the law? I'm pretty sure we have a similar in England/Wales in the form of Sec 5 of the Public Order Act, but then it's only if a police constable orders yo to remove it, and they can only do so if it's actually somehow upsetting public order.

[GTAvanja]

He was asking for it. Being black and carrying ice tea around like he owns the place.


f*ck this world.

[lil weasel]

Leave your Halloween masks at home

QUOTE (By Denise-marie Balona @ Sentinel Staff Writer, October 27 2007)

It could be a dangerous time for teenagers to wear Halloween masks in public, several Central Florida law-enforcement officials said this week. Teens out having fun in costumes could spook store clerks across the region who are already jumpy after a slew of robberies by men wearing gorilla, Scream and other masks. Randy Means, executive director of the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office, said wearing masks at parties is fine but they should be off in stores and other public places. He warned that firearms are more prevalent and that state law now gives people such as cashiers and hotel clerks more freedom to defend themselves. [...]"If they see two guys inside [the store] with a mask and they fear for themselves, the 16-year-old goofing around with a mask could be dead," Means said.

Full story
Don't forget that full face Motorcycle helmets might be included.
So you take the Mask law and the Stand your ground law and what do you have?

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 20:19

[GTAvanja]

A boring f*ckin' life is what you're left with. It seems they're out to outlaw any kind of fun you might have in life simply because someone might get scared and someone might get hurt. Why not just live like a f*ckin' plant then. I find it hilarious that all this happens in a country where everyone has the right to bear arms.

[lil weasel]

Religion Rules: The Bible Belt says you arn't supposed to have 'fun', you are to 'Serve the Lord'. God will protect you and if God doesn't then you must have sinned.
Any form of defense might threaten the Policial Powers/Police. That's why owning a Bullet resistant Vest, Mace (t), orther such defensive devices are unlawful in many areas (NYC).

the President says (not too loudly) Weapons belong in the hands of the Government, not the people (see Atty General).

I've heard it said that the "Right of the People to keep and [...]" actually only applies to the Legislature. Being based on the Declaration of Independance, "We the People in order to ...[...]"

[ryuclan]

Not to detract from the current discussion but regarding the hoody thing. I don't see why it wasn't unwise of him to wear a hoody. He was in his own neighborhood. House a block or two away. He can wear f*cking boxers and fuzzy slippers if he wanted. The guy considers himself a neighborhood watchmen...why didn't he already know the victim? How do you protect people when you don't even know their face?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 20:52)

That's why owning a Bullet resistant Vest, Mace (t), orther such defensive devices are unlawful in many areas (NYC).

Why the communist would those be illegal?

And I thought the People's Republic of California was bad (with their ban on open carry)!

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 22:52)

Any form of defense might threaten the Policial Powers/Police. That's why owning a Bullet resistant Vest, Mace (t), orther such defensive devices are unlawful in many areas (NYC).

Are you f*ckin' kiddin' me? It's legal to own and carry a gun but it's illegal to own and wear a bulletproof vest? What, the government wants you to kill each other?

That's just retarded. And no, I'm not just using that word. It's really retarded.

[boxmonster]

QUOTE (ryuclan @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 21:11)

Not to detract from the current discussion but regarding the hoody thing. I don't see why it wasn't unwise of him to wear a hoody. He was in his own neighborhood. House a block or two away. He can wear f*cking boxers and fuzzy slippers if he wanted. The guy considers himself a neighborhood watchmen...why didn't he already know the victim? How do you protect people when you don't even know their face?

Actually Trayvon was visiting from Miami.

Anyways, on chilly days in Florida, most guys just wear hoodies. It was raining when this happened. When I wear a hoodie and don't have an umbrella, I put the hood up. I don't know how paranoid Zimmerman must've been to not be able to put that together.

[lil weasel]

The Police find it difficult to shoot criminals wearing Vests, Mace (t) type products have been used against the Police.

I've read that the Sullivan Laws (NYC) were to prevent the Gent's from defending themselves when confronted by Footpads. Sullivan was the councilman, or somesuch, in the roughest area of the city. His Constituents didn't like being suprised when going about their 'labours'.

[GTAvanja]

So why don't they ban guns?

Oh wait, that would actually make sense. Never mind.