Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:56 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:I know that law. It is the law that says the less good looking you are the lower likely hood there is that you will be allowed to enter a heavenly (celestial) body at any point in your existance.

I violate this law on a regular basis. I always dated and then married way out of my league!

Care to try again? I just dropped an apple and gravity is still working. :thumbsup:



Prove to me it wasn't the alien reverse tractor beam which was still working, and we'll talk.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby beretta24 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:26 am

Prove to me it wasn't the forward beam. Pretty sure that one is stronger.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:46 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Things that are reproduced many many times will always be facts. The interpretation of those facts may changes, which may be a distinction without a difference.

I was pretty much with ya till this one, Spinner. Just the concept of spontaneous mutation proves that a "fact' is not immutable. Now....is it a fact that there are no facts, Grasshopper? :lol3:

Has anyone ever seen a spontaneous mutation? :huh:

Image

Now you have to get into semantics. It's easy to create an experiment where DNA is damaged. A positive benefit has never been seen. I interpret that as intelligent design. Others interpret that as Darwinian :huh:

Are you sure you aren't proposing the equivalent of the alien tractor beam theory of gravity? It is one interpretation of the experimental results that we all see.

Are beneficial spontaneous mutations a fact? I'm pretty sure a case can be made for harmful ones, but they are far from spontaneous. DNA damage and repair, often imperfect, is routinely observable as are the physics behind much of it.

BTW, there is a very important rule for all scientific models, computer models, computer simulations, or anything used to model reality used in science and engineering.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ohioboy » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:09 am

DNA, mutations, a picture of Bigfoot?











What happened to George and Trayvon? :offtopic:
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:59 am

Lets quote another law of physics. Everything moves towards entropy. If you believe in physics, you cannot believe in Darwinism. If everything moves to entropy then animals, plants, and other things will not become more complex and able to handle higher functions. They would be devolving. There is a point where you have to stand back and look at the complexity of the system and say. That didn't just happen or just magically violate the laws of Physics and form over time.

Then again maybe you don't.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:19 am

ScaupHunter wrote:Lets quote another law of physics. Everything moves towards entropy. If you believe in physics, you cannot believe in Darwinism. If everything moves to entropy then animals, plants, and other things will not become more complex and able to handle higher functions. They would be devolving. There is a point where you have to stand back and look at the complexity of the system and say. That didn't just happen or just magically violate the laws of Physics and form over time.

Then again maybe you don't.


The Earth is not a closed system; the Universe may be.

In a closed system the entropy will only increase which would result in the heat death of the Universe as complex energy is destroyed and evenly distributed until reaching an equilibrium. On a long enough time line, animals will be destroyed.

Viewing the Earth as its own system though, it is not isolated and it's constantly receiving more complex energies which animals use to function. Those energies will, however, die out as entropy increases.

I'm not saying I agree with Darwinists, I just think that's how they'd answer.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14149
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:52 am

I think you are dead on with that response.

The key flaw with the argument is that in the long run everything still moves to entropy. Changing climates and other factors can end entire species and cause mass extinctions. Which of course is part of everything moving to entropy. Every living thing consumes more energy than it puts out. Mechanical systems do the same thing. Burning wood does the same, etc.... Eventually given enough time a world will burn all of it's useful energy out and will die. That is a very long time, but it will happen.

We as humans are supporting that effort very nicely, and speeding it up dramatically. The good news for all the Darwinism folks is that following the path we are on will end in the eutopian world they want. That world will of course either not have humans on it, or we will be a very small percentage of the humans on earth today.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:31 pm

ohioboy wrote:DNA, mutations, a picture of Bigfoot?











What happened to George and Trayvon? :offtopic:

George W. Zimmerman was rightfully found not guilty and Trayvon Obama, Jr. is still dead after grounding and pounding an armed man that had creeped him out.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:19 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Things that are reproduced many many times will always be facts. The interpretation of those facts may changes, which may be a distinction without a difference.

I was pretty much with ya till this one, Spinner. Just the concept of spontaneous mutation proves that a "fact' is not immutable. Now....is it a fact that there are no facts, Grasshopper? :lol3:

SpinnerMan wrote: Has anyone ever seen a spontaneous mutation? :huh:


I believe that we see them everyday, Spinner. The Idiot Savant is a spontaneous mutation, with at times unfathomable attributes to society that we not yet begun to fathom. Many aspects of mental lillness can be considered as spontaneous mutation, with beneficial aspects just beginning to be understood. Van Gogh? Run of the mill guy or spontaneous mutation. Einstein? Shakespeare? Da Vinci? And thousands of others whose benefits have yet to be seen, in my opinion. Now...I could probably get into spontaneous mutation of Tse Tse flies that would make my point as well, just not as dramatically, in my opinion. :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:26 am

SpinnerMan wrote:Has anyone ever seen a spontaneous mutation? :huh



Image
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:56 am

Glimmerjim wrote:The Idiot Savant is a spontaneous mutation
How so? That's like arguing that red hair is a spontaneous mutation. The genes were there. They just had to show up in the right combination like the winning lottery numbers. Look at what unbelievable physical changes have resulted from selective breeding. No mutations necessary, just careful and patient manipulation of the gene pool.

Glimmerjim wrote:Many aspects of mental lillness can be considered as spontaneous mutation, with beneficial aspects just beginning to be understood. Van Gogh?
Again no mutations necessary.

Glimmerjim wrote:Now...I could probably get into spontaneous mutation of Tse Tse flies that would make my point as well, just not as dramatically, in my opinion. :thumbsup:
You have failed to identify a single mutation. So you need to keep working.

However, as I said, there is nothing spontaneous about the damage of DNA. We are continuously flooded with ionizing radiation. The ability of ionizing radiation to damage DNA is not a mystery. Same with so many of the other things that damage DNA including just simple thermal vibrations because of the very small high energy distribution tail that results. Even if we could find that Yeti, the random nature of the induced mutations is not surprised. Random is not spontaneous. And very very low probability events doesn't make them unexplained by science.

The only way for true spontaineous (non-physical) events is God :yes:

If they do exist, it is proof positive of God. The counter argument is that we simply don't understand the physical basis.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby tenfingergrip » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:02 am

More 'food for thought'!

http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
User avatar
tenfingergrip
hunter
 
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Eastern NC

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:43 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:The Idiot Savant is a spontaneous mutation
How so? That's like arguing that red hair is a spontaneous mutation. The genes were there. They just had to show up in the right combination like the winning lottery numbers. Look at what unbelievable physical changes have resulted from selective breeding. No mutations necessary, just careful and patient manipulation of the gene pool.

Glimmerjim wrote:Many aspects of mental lillness can be considered as spontaneous mutation, with beneficial aspects just beginning to be understood. Van Gogh?
Again no mutations necessary.

Glimmerjim wrote:Now...I could probably get into spontaneous mutation of Tse Tse flies that would make my point as well, just not as dramatically, in my opinion. :thumbsup:
You have failed to identify a single mutation. So you need to keep working.

However, as I said, there is nothing spontaneous about the damage of DNA. We are continuously flooded with ionizing radiation. The ability of ionizing radiation to damage DNA is not a mystery. Same with so many of the other things that damage DNA including just simple thermal vibrations because of the very small high energy distribution tail that results. Even if we could find that Yeti, the random nature of the induced mutations is not surprised. Random is not spontaneous. And very very low probability events doesn't make them unexplained by science.

SpinnerMan wrote: The only way for true spontaineous (non-physical) events is God :yes:

If they do exist, it is proof positive of God. The counter argument is that we simply don't understand the physical basis.

Quite the opposite Spinner. If we take the definition of "spontaneous" as unplanned or manipulated, I would venture that the existence of any anomalies "disproves" the existence of God, rather than proof positive. If an event occurs that is truly "unplanned", then that certainly provides little evidence of a Supreme Being that is omniscient. To state that the counter-argument is that we simply are not aware of the physical process that led to this anomaly is once again evidence that we are capable of knowing all, or what we would consider as "God", we just haven't achieved that point yet. We continue to find physical explanations for that once considered as "unknowable" every day.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:08 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Quite the opposite Spinner. If we take the definition of "spontaneous" as unplanned or manipulated, I would venture that the existence of any anomalies "disproves" the existence of God, rather than proof positive.

I tried to use the words carefully.

Let's go to the craps table. Rolling snake eyes is unexpected on any given roll because it is 1 out of the 36 possible combinations that you can roll. Rolling it 10 times in a row, well I know it's 50/50, but it is only 1 out of the 3,656,158,440,062,980 possible outcomes if you roll 10 times.

What would rolling snake eyes 10 times in a row and betting on that and letting it ride mean? Probably a beating and left in the ally behind the casino without any of your winnings. But it is not a "spontaneous" or unplanned outcome and would certainly be interpreted as a manipulated outcome unless you believe in evolution. Then it's just routine :yes:

This is nothing more than an extremely low frequency expected outcome that one would never in a billion years expect to witness. What does it mean if you do witness it and you are certain it was fair dice?

Glimmerjim wrote:To state that the counter-argument is that we simply are not aware of the physical process that led to this anomaly is once again evidence that we are capable of knowing all, or what we would consider as "God", we just haven't achieved that point yet.
Agreed and I said basically the same thing in a different way.

Glimmerjim wrote:We continue to find physical explanations for that once considered as "unknowable" every day.
Then they are by definition not "true spontaneous (non-physical) events" are they? :no:

This is why God is unknowable in a scientifically rigorous way.

If I am wrong, I will never know, but all those atheists out there, if they are wrong, well they will know Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby vincentpa » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:17 pm

WTN10 wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Lets quote another law of physics. Everything moves towards entropy. If you believe in physics, you cannot believe in Darwinism. If everything moves to entropy then animals, plants, and other things will not become more complex and able to handle higher functions. They would be devolving. There is a point where you have to stand back and look at the complexity of the system and say. That didn't just happen or just magically violate the laws of Physics and form over time.

Then again maybe you don't.


The Earth is not a closed system; the Universe may be.

In a closed system the entropy will only increase which would result in the heat death of the Universe as complex energy is destroyed and evenly distributed until reaching an equilibrium. On a long enough time line, animals will be destroyed.

Viewing the Earth as its own system though, it is not isolated and it's constantly receiving more complex energies which animals use to function. Those energies will, however, die out as entropy increases.

I'm not saying I agree with Darwinists, I just think that's how they'd answer.


you're confusing a closed system with an isolated system. They are different. The earth is modeled as a closed system because that is how it mostly behaves.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:56 pm

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm reading more about it.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14149
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ohioboy » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:05 pm

wtn, you changing your avatar daily now?
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:58 pm

ohioboy wrote:wtn, you changing your avatar daily now?

I don't know but that's a fascinating one. That period of post WW2 to say mid-sixties was a mind-blowing period. I have studied it a bit. One of the most interesting things I have read to date was called "Populuxe". It is a study of both the styles of the day, architecturally as well as life-style, and the origin and manipulation of the consumer driven economy. Worth a look if you can run across it. Written slyly, almost as a documentary of the times, but with these subtle opinions and perceived ramifications thrown in. Much like the times. Everything had an agenda, but wanted itself perceived as strictly a recitation of fact and circumstance. Not saying it is less manipulated now, by a long measure, but the average person is not quite as malleable as they once were, so the curtain falls down after just about every pronouncement from the Great Oz. Confusing period in time, it strikes me as.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby cartervj » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:09 pm

is this a HATE Crime?

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:03 pm

cartervj wrote:is this a HATE Crime?


A crime chargeable against whom, carter? The three kids or the driver? Determining whether the actions of the aggressors could be considered as a "Hate Crime" would obviously be better answered by one of the attorneys here. My opinion would suggest that that the motivating factor for the assault would be the determining factor. If the victim called one of them a name, spread rumors, or any of a million other reasons that pissed off the three I would say that it would not be considered as a Hate Crime. If his skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion was the factor, then it would be. As regards the driver, while his lack of action was deplorable, I don't believe there are legal requirements for physically intervening to protect anyone.

EDIT: You got me curious and I did a (very) little research. A person is not obligated to come to the assistance of another, but could be in breach of contract if it is with in the scope of his duties such as bodyguard, security guard, etc. Bus Driver? I doubt it.
Now for the kicker.... a number of cases have shown that police officers are NOT legally mandated to come to the aid of a citizen, either! I can understand how this could come into place, as a plethora of law suits would dominate the courts if a LEO didn't, in someone's mind, adequately protect them, but it still seems strange to hear!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:01 am

Glimmerjim wrote:My opinion would suggest that that the motivating factor for the assault would be the determining factor.
I just don't like trying to be a mind reader when it matters or asking a jury to do so and making it a factor in the punishment.

Glimmerjim wrote:I would say that it would not be considered as a Hate Crime. If his skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion was the factor, then it would be.
So beating up the fat kid because he is fat or the skinny kid because he is skinny or the redhead or anyone that is not exactly the same as you because they are not exactly the same as you makes it a more serious crime :no: Plus as we all know when it is a cracker doing something against an ***** (according to the wise sage Ms. Jeantel that is not a slur without the er although I'm not going to try that in public) the reaction is far different than if a ***** were to commit a crime upon a cracker simply because he is a cracker.

The crime should be punished according to the harm done to the individual. If you murder someone, I don't think they should be killed any deader if it was motivated by hatred of some superficial difference. And for lesser crimes, why should the guy be punished more because he chose the 7-Eleven to rob because he can't stand that you cannot go into one with a slight Indian accent over?

Glimmerjim wrote:a number of cases have shown that police officers are NOT legally mandated to come to the aid of a citizen
I actually agree with that. Otherwise, the discrimination of the cops would be subject to litigation. However, it is a good excuse to fire them if they don't unless there is a damn good reason.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:08 am

Glimmerjim wrote:My opinion would suggest that that the motivating factor for the assault would be the determining factor.

SpinnerMan wrote: I just don't like trying to be a mind reader when it matters or asking a jury to do so and making it a factor in the punishment.

I think that legally it usually boils down to statements made by the assailants...."kick that fa**ot's ass"..etc., and there is no other discernible reason such as personal slight, previous history, etc.

Glimmerjim wrote:I would say that it would not be considered as a Hate Crime. If his skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion was the factor, then it would be.

SpinnerMan wrote: So beating up the fat kid because he is fat or the skinny kid because he is skinny or the redhead or anyone that is not exactly the same as you because they are not exactly the same as you makes it a more serious crime :no: The crime should be punished according to the harm done to the individual. If you murder someone, I don't think they should be killed any deader if it was motivated by hatred of some superficial difference. And for lesser crimes, why should the guy be punished more because he chose the 7-Eleven to rob because he can't stand that you cannot go into one with a slight Indian accent over?

Not saying I agree with it, Spinner, just trying to understand what differentiates it from a "non" Hate Crime.
Glimmerjim wrote:a number of cases have shown that police officers are NOT legally mandated to come to the aid of a citizen

SpinnerMan wrote: I actually agree with that. Otherwise, the discrimination of the cops would be subject to litigation. However, it is a good excuse to fire them if they don't unless there is a damn good reason.

Holy cow. Every move they made would be subject to litigation!
But then again, back to the original definition of "Breach of Contract" for those in some positions, wouldn't this be similar? They are "public" employees contractually obligated to enforce the law. Someone endangering or injuring another IS breaking the law, so wouldn't the LEO be obligated to attempt to prevent it? Not necessarily criminally liable for failure to do so, but civilly?
I have no clue, really, just conjecturing.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:34 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:I think that legally it usually boils down to statements made by the assailants...."kick that fa**ot's ass"..etc., and there is no other discernible reason such as personal slight, previous history, etc.
But why did he make those statements? Was he simply trying to get under the skin of the person or did he have true bias? If your being an @hole, you are going to look at the person and say things based on their appearance to try and get a reaction. That will be obvious physical features and the old standby's of stupid, gay, etc.

In a court of law, the accused is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and the government is supposed to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Injecting all this emotionally charged rhetoric is completely counter to that especially when at the end of the day there is often a plausible non-criminal explanation that the crime was random. Granted, sometimes it is crystal clear that the reason they hated the person were superficial, but so what if they were "legitimate" reasons to hate the person that they committed the crime against and why is totally random "better" and subject to less criminal penalty than a bias based crime?

Of course, the prosecutor wants a cute little white girl for a victim and not some angry, mean, shady black teen with a spotty past. Facts are facts and all this does is raises emotions which is not how just is served.

Glimmerjim wrote:Not saying I agree with it, Spinner, just trying to understand what differentiates it from a "non" Hate Crime.
I reject the premise. I don't try to understand stupid. I hope to get it out of the law, especially when it has failed and is used in such a disparate way. It is unnecessary and it is divisive, it is abused, ignored, ... It's just terrible law.

Glimmerjim wrote:Someone endangering or injuring another IS breaking the law, so wouldn't the LEO be obligated to attempt to prevent it?
So they have to stop ever speeder they see? Going 68 mph in a 65 mph speed zone is breaking the law and speeding does kill people.

A better example is that probably 10 or 15 years ago, a murder had been committed somewhere in the general area of the small town I grew up in. They had the make, model, and maybe even the license plate of the car the guy was in. A major highway runs through my little town that was a likely path of the guy. So the small town cop was sitting near my grandparents house looking for this car. Clearly, he should use some discretion on enforcement of observed criminal activity while looking for a murderer. The reason I know what he was doing is because sure enough, the murderer drove through town, this cop spotted him, followed him and then him and some other local cops from a nearby town block him off in a stretch of road with a mountain on one side and river on the other and took him into custody.

All this has to be handled in the context of the employer/employee process. Granted that is often screwed up by union or public employee laws, but it should not be handled in criminal or civil court.

If a cop is on duty and off shagging his girlfriend, clearly he is not fulfilling his "contractual obligations" but does every crime victim in the area get to file a class action suit against him? It seems even worse than trying to prove without reasonable doubt that the true motive of the crime was superficial hatred.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:52 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Not saying I agree with it, Spinner, just trying to understand what differentiates it from a "non" Hate Crime.

SpinnerMan wrote: I reject the premise. I don't try to understand stupid. I hope to get it out of the law, especially when it has failed and is used in such a disparate way. It is unnecessary and it is divisive, it is abused, ignored, ... It's just terrible law.

I suppose we are simply different in that manner, Spinner. When I run across something that I simply don't understand the rationale for, especially outside my area of expertise, I attempt to understand the purpose and/or origination of it rather than just dismiss it as "stupid." Often times I find that there was indeed a rational purpose that I was just unaware of at the time.

Glimmerjim wrote:Someone endangering or injuring another IS breaking the law, so wouldn't the LEO be obligated to attempt to prevent it?


SpinnerMan wrote: So they have to stop ever speeder they see? Going 68 mph in a 65 mph speed zone is breaking the law and speeding does kill people.

Not a valid comparison in the least, Spinner. A driver, at 68 in a 65 mph zone is, in the VAST majority of cases, not creating a situation certain to cause harm to anyone. That was what we were discussing, at least in my opinion. If an officer had walked up to see Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, should he be held criminally or civilly liable for not attempting to stop the action? An officer citing every vehicle driving less than 5% over the posted limit would have no time for anything else. Nor would he, in my opinion, be serving either his contractual duties nor justice to the best of his abilities in doing so.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:05 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Not saying I agree with it, Spinner, just trying to understand what differentiates it from a "non" Hate Crime.

SpinnerMan wrote: I reject the premise. I don't try to understand stupid. I hope to get it out of the law, especially when it has failed and is used in such a disparate way. It is unnecessary and it is divisive, it is abused, ignored, ... It's just terrible law.

I suppose we are simply different in that manner, Spinner. When I run across something that I simply don't understand the rationale for, especially outside my area of expertise, I attempt to understand the purpose and/or origination of it rather than just dismiss it as "stupid." Often times I find that there was indeed a rational purpose that I was just unaware of at the time.
These laws have been in existences for quite some time now. They are not unknown. They have demonstrated themselves to be stupid. It is clear why they are stupid in practice. I am not going to pretend otherwise for political correct or feel good reasons and I'm not going to try to dig deeper into stupid than necessary.



Glimmerjim wrote:A driver, at 68 in a 65 mph zone is, in the VAST majority of cases, not creating a situation certain to cause harm to anyone.
Yes, but it is a crime. When should the cop disregard this crime? 69, 70, 71, 72, ... :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:If an officer had walked up to see Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, should he be held criminally or civilly liable for not attempting to stop the action?
No. Fired. Damn straight, but Zimmerman or his estate should not have legal recourse. I get the notion at some point what the cop does is so egregious that you want to have a way to punish them. The courts are not always the place for that. The Mayor, the Chief of Police, ..., they can all be held to answer for this. It's much like the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. He has the power to do horrible things. Trying to set the boundaries via legislation and court proceedings is just not the way you resolve this. It is handled in the political process and that is often very unsatisfying, but it is the best of the bad options by far.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests