George Zimmerman got punched in the face...

[Deepak]

Another woman also spoke with a 911 operator and said it really wasn’t necessary to send police.
“We just almost had a fight,” she said, “but we broke it up.”

“He told me he’d fucking shoot me,” Zimmerman told a 911 operator, adding he was bleeding and his glasses were broken. “He punched me in the face.”

As deputies arrived on the scene, Zimmerman requested paramedics.
“I don’t know where I’m bleeding from,” he said.

Sounds like asshole Zimmerman may be exaggerating the danger to himself again.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoe...ter-discussing?utm_term=.nmj2GQvAD#.kazP0Da6B

May be?

Zimmerman told deputies and 911 the man who had punched him also called him a “n——- lover.”

I'm just surprised Trump didn't pick Z as his running mate - though the reality distortion field created by such a prospect would likely swallow the Solar System in a black hole.

 

[Toni]

Oh so you support killing with pianos, but not with guns?

I don't condone murder. However accidents with pianos falling do happen.

And sledgehammers. My understanding is that sometimes people fall and bang themselves in the face and all about the head with sledgehammers. Just for no reason at all, it seems. It really is a thing.

Or should be.

 

[Arctish]

So apparently, George Zimmerman was bragging about how he killed Trayvon Martin...and someone took offense, and punched him in the face. And Zimmerman decided to cower and call the cops.

story here, I guess...

"Witnesses say they overheard Zimmerman say "I love your tattoos. My name is George Zimmerman, you know, that guy who killed Trayvon Martin?" Witnesses say Zimmerman also showed his identification card."

That sounds like a pick-up line followed by an attempt to impress. Was he flirting with someone?

 

[Keith&Co.]

That sounds like a pick-up line followed by an attempt to impress. Was he flirting with someone?

Does it count if it's Zimmerman that Zimmerman was trying to pick up?

 

[Arctish]

That sounds like a pick-up line followed by an attempt to impress. Was he flirting with someone?

Does it count if it's Zimmerman that Zimmerman was trying to pick up?

As a reason to punch him in the face? No.

As a reason to think he deserves a punch in the face? Yes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thanks, Obama.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh so you support killing with pianos, but not with guns?

I don't condone murder. However accidents with pianos falling do happen.

Pianos don't kill people, people kill people ... sometimes with pianos. If we ban the pianos, criminals are just going to beat people to death with saxophones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't condone murder. However accidents with pianos falling do happen.

Pianos don't kill people, people kill people ... sometimes with pianos. If we ban the pianos, criminals are just going to beat people to death with saxophones.

Ropes can break.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is a quote of which Thurgood Marshall was quite fond.

For those of you feeling bad about feeling good.

I am a man of peace but I adore a riot

Embrace your primal self

Personally I don't believe in karma, but I can sure enjoy it when it happens.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So is there a legal defense fund on GoFundme or something? I'm sure lots of people would donate towards the defense of the er, boxer.

 

[KeepTalking]

I can't think of a more deserving person. Violence is sometimes the answer, and hopefully the next time Zimmerman decides to brag about being a murderer in public, he will receive the same answer.

 

[ronburgundy]

I can't think of a more deserving person. Violence is sometimes the answer, and hopefully the next time Zimmerman decides to brag about being a murderer in public, he will receive the same answer.

Agreed. My reaction was non-conflicted pleasure about which I feel no guilt and hope it happens again.

If only someone had been present to use needed violence against Zimmerman to stop him from murdering Martin, and that someone includes a cop shooting Zimmerman as soon as he pulled the gun out to shoot Martin.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I can't think of a more deserving person. Violence is sometimes the answer, and hopefully the next time Zimmerman decides to brag about being a murderer in public, he will receive the same answer.

Agreed. My reaction was non-conflicted pleasure about which I feel no guilt and hope it happens again.

If only someone had been present to use needed violence against Zimmerman to stop him from murdering Martin, and that someone includes a cop shooting Zimmerman as soon as he pulled the gun out to shoot Martin.

And not for the needed assault if Martin had assaulted Zimmerman. Yes it would have been nice when Z called the cops if they showed up before the two had met.


It was also good that Z didn't pull his weapon against this assault.

 

[ronburgundy]

Agreed. My reaction was non-conflicted pleasure about which I feel no guilt and hope it happens again.

If only someone had been present to use needed violence against Zimmerman to stop him from murdering Martin, and that someone includes a cop shooting Zimmerman as soon as he pulled the gun out to shoot Martin.

Yes it would have been nice when Z called the cops if they showed up before the two had met.

It would have good if Z didn't stalk and murder an unarmed kid before the cops could arrive.

It was also good that Z didn't pull his weapon against this assault.

Depends. Had he pulled his weapon and then they beat him to death with it and gotten off on a "stand your ground" defense that would be awesomely hilarious.
Had Z shot them, then it would be bad because Z was the only one deserving of violence.

What is good in terms of legal principles is quite different (and sometimes the opposite) of what is good in terms of justice and ethics in a particular instance.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It would have good if Z didn't stalk and murder an unarmed kid before the cops could arrive.

And it would be nice to never have crime so cops never get involved in anything

Depends. Had he pulled his weapon and then they beat him to death with it and gotten off on a "stand your ground" defense that would be awesomely hilarious.
Had Z shot them, then it would be bad because Z was the only one deserving of violence.

What is good in terms of legal principles is quite different (and sometimes the opposite) of what is good in terms of justice and ethics in a particular instance.

There would have been a huge argument over the punch thrown by the guy justified Z's self defense in this case. So we don't have to argue that. Because someone deserves a punch, doesn't mean someone has a legal right to do it.

 

[ronburgundy]

And it would be nice to never have crime so cops never get involved in anything

Depends. Had he pulled his weapon and then they beat him to death with it and gotten off on a "stand your ground" defense that would be awesomely hilarious.
Had Z shot them, then it would be bad because Z was the only one deserving of violence.

What is good in terms of legal principles is quite different (and sometimes the opposite) of what is good in terms of justice and ethics in a particular instance.

There would have been a huge argument over the punch thrown by the guy justified Z's self defense in this case. So we don't have to argue that. Because someone deserves a punch, doesn't mean someone has a legal right to do it.

I realize that, which I ended my post by pointing out that legal principles that should optimize justice at the aggregate level are very different from what moral and even just (not in strict legal sense) in a specific situation. I can (and feel no guilt about) hope for and cheer for outcomes in a given situation regardless of whether I think the formal law should allow for that outcome. IOW, it is quite rational and moral to support laws that you also hope are violated without prosecution in some circumstances.

Political discourse would be much more sane and productive if more people would realize this without trying to create perfect coherence between what the law should be and what they hope will happen in specific situations via lies, fallacies, and self-delusion. The law is a crude blunt object that cannot be applied with precision, so sometimes the world is better when it isn't applied at all, even though it is technically relevant to a situation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And it would be nice to never have crime so cops never get involved in anything





There would have been a huge argument over the punch thrown by the guy justified Z's self defense in this case. So we don't have to argue that. Because someone deserves a punch, doesn't mean someone has a legal right to do it.

I realize that, which I ended my post by pointing out that legal principles that should optimize justice at the aggregate level are very different from what moral and even just (not in strict legal sense) in a specific situation. I can (and feel no guilt about) hope for and cheer for outcomes in a given situation regardless of whether I think the formal law should allow for that outcome. IOW, it is quite rational and moral to support laws that you also hope are violated without prosecution in some circumstances.

Political discourse would be much more sane and productive if more people would realize this without trying to create perfect coherence between what the law should be and what they hope will happen in specific situations via lies, fallacies, and self-delusion. The law is a crude blunt object that cannot be applied with precision, so sometimes the world is better when it isn't applied at all, even though it is technically relevant to a situation.

I guess it gets into the problem of vigilante justice compared to third party justice. It's a conundrum for people but you get into the huge problem of who gets to decide what the justice should be?

 

[Bronzeage]

Apparently, George was not armed, this time.

 

[ronburgundy]

I realize that, which I ended my post by pointing out that legal principles that should optimize justice at the aggregate level are very different from what moral and even just (not in strict legal sense) in a specific situation. I can (and feel no guilt about) hope for and cheer for outcomes in a given situation regardless of whether I think the formal law should allow for that outcome. IOW, it is quite rational and moral to support laws that you also hope are violated without prosecution in some circumstances.

Political discourse would be much more sane and productive if more people would realize this without trying to create perfect coherence between what the law should be and what they hope will happen in specific situations via lies, fallacies, and self-delusion. The law is a crude blunt object that cannot be applied with precision, so sometimes the world is better when it isn't applied at all, even though it is technically relevant to a situation.

I guess it gets into the problem of vigilante justice compared to third party justice. It's a conundrum for people but you get into the huge problem of who gets to decide what the justice should be?

Except that very question is rooted in the wrongful conflating of the law and the outcome one wants in a particular situation. You can have each person deciding what they personally want to see happen in a situation, and at the same time they also defer to formal systems and delegated authorities to determine what the outcome is in any formal legal decision.
I can support laws against vigilante killings, and support that the law should strive to go after such killers. That doesn't dictate my conscience or how I feel (or even what I do) if I see a guy rape and murder a child then see the parent of that child shoot that guy as he tries to escape. If I have that certainty of knowledge in a particular case, then I want the parent to get away with it and even not go through the strain of a trial. That is not inconsistent with (because it is irrelevant to) what I want the laws to be or how I want I want the standard principles of law enforcement and prosecution to be, because those things must strive to operate with consistency to minimize injustice overall, not guarantee justice in any specific case.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I guess it gets into the problem of vigilante justice compared to third party justice. It's a conundrum for people but you get into the huge problem of who gets to decide what the justice should be?

Except that very question is rooted in the wrongful conflating of the law and the outcome one wants in a particular situation. You can have each person deciding what they personally want to see happen in a situation, and at the same time they also defer to formal systems and delegated authorities to determine what the outcome is in any formal legal decision.
I can support laws against vigilante killings, and support that the law should strive to go after such killers. That doesn't dictate my conscience or how I feel (or even what I do) if I see a guy rape and murder a child then see the parent of that child shoot that guy as he tries to escape. If I have that certainty of knowledge in a particular case, then I want the parent to get away with it and even not go through the strain of a trial. That is not inconsistent with (because it is irrelevant to) what I want the laws to be or how I want I want the standard principles of law enforcement and prosecution to be, because those things must strive to operate with consistency to minimize injustice overall, not guarantee justice in any specific case.

But it's the tradeoff in any justice system though. We can make it so that the person harmed or family members decide the punishment. We can make it so the whole country votes the guilt and punishment, or we can have some type of judge/jury system. Humans have a very weird mix of emotions.