Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Our media? You don't live here.

So Dirty Harry probably is part of the German cultural consciousness, maybe not to the same degree as in America, but still extant.

"Thug" is just a racist code word for a black person anyways.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Our media? You don't live here.

Perhaps I was talking about German media? How rude to just include yourself. Though really, modern Western culture is not particularly different between Europe and the US, particularly through the strong US influences (as OV pointed out), though German domestic media does the same thing anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Counter question, do you really think that stalking, confronting, fighting and shooting an unarmed, black kid should not have legal consequences?

i've answered your question, maybe try answering mine instead of deflecting again

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh no it isn't lol. A thug is a thug. Stop being so sensitive.

That's mostly a consequence of black culture (Thug Lyfe and all that), but mainstream media has run with it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea honestly i was on the fence about trayvon because i do think zimmerman acted irresponsibly with his vigilante style of policing.. his actions leading up to the confrontation, i feel, should be against some sort of law. that being said... this doesn't justify trayvon's response. and i don't think that shooting someone in self defense in the midst of a physical assault should be considered murder.

i've answered your question, maybe try answering mine instead of deflecting again

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh no it isn't lol. A thug is a thug.

Precisely. It's just that the thugs that've been attacking/killing cops recently and/or burning down businesses of innocent people and looting have all been black. Thugs come in all colors.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think unless Zimmerman could prove his life was in danger, use of deadly force shouldn't be justified, particularly when he was the instigator of the confrontation. If TM had run up on Zimmerman unprovoked and started stomping his ass, maybe I'd agree that use of deadly force was justified, but we're talking about someone who was looking for trouble, found it, and then doubled down with lethal force. In no sane, ordered society should there be any question of whether Zimmerman was in the wrong and deserving of some of kind of legal consequence.

what i'd point out is that a fist fight can easily turn deadly... or could lead to life altering injuries... particularly if the fight starts to turn in the advantage of one person and it turns into them pummeling you while on the ground.

i'd ask you guys to keep that in mind, because i think a lot of people fail to realize exactly how serious a situation like that is. i'd say the standard should be not that zimmerman has to prove his life was in danger, but rather that the potential for that danger seemed present as best as he could tell.

i don't think people should be required to wait until they can prove their life was about to end if they don't act... situations like that are far too risky and i'd say you should have to right to neutralize a potential threat before it reaches that level if they decide to break the law by initiating the use of force against you. at that point, to me, they forfeit their right to safety by attacking the safety of someone else. so i say if they get shot as a result then well that's sad but oh well. they brought it on themselves. similarly, you can get shot breaking into someone's house. even if you're unarmed. breaking into a house in and of itself isn't putting the life of the home owner in danger... but so far as the home owner can tell, this person might indeed be a threat to their life. because that is the behavior of a violent criminal with the potential intent to do them harm. so if they get shot during the B&E by a startled homeowner then that's their own fault, imo.

now where i sort of agree with you regarding zimmerman, is that he did seek out the conflict and so i think morally that makes him at fault for the resulting confrontation which then turned deadly... that being said... i don't know exactly what crime you could charge him with there. because the once the fight is on, his use of deadly force checks out as self defense. the fact that his actions lead to the fight have no bearing on whether or not the way he ended the assault with the use of deadly force was self defense. so to charge him with murder in that case is an over reach.

but i would have been fine if he was charged with some sort of reckless behavior crime... specifically for stalking trayvon with a weapon at night and all that. that should be illegal, fight or no fight, shooting or no shooting. cause it's hazardous and reckless. but if there's not a law against that at the time... then what can you do? there's no crime. you can't charge him. that's not a race thing. that's a problem with the law. if trayvon had been white, this legal problem doesn't disappear.

so turning it into a racial campaign is just shameless and opportunistic race baiting imo, and serves little purpose other than to provoke tribalism and stir the pot, presumably cause it gives certain people and organizations and interests more propaganda fodder and a new political bargaining chip.

YouTube video

Just going to say this: I think it's very dangerous if the grounds for making recourse to deadly force against an unarmed assailant is your own assessment of the situation. I think there should be a higher standard than that. Some people can get their ass kicked without losing their composure. For others, they might think their life is in danger after one punch. It's the latter group that are going to be responsible for most of these sorts of homicides.

Poor victims.

Originally posted by red g jacks
wait... you say if trayvon came up and started stomping his ass out of nowhere, then maybe you would agree his use of lethal force is justified? so there's still some doubt in your mind as to whether using lethal force is justified after someone else initiates a physical confrontation with you that could very well turn deadly? i'm just asking, cause i'm not sure we're on the same page regarding deadly force... in fact i'm pretty sure that based on what you are saying, you basically disagree with the law the way it is currently applied regarding deadly force in general, in which case this has less to do with race and more to do with you disagreeing with the current legal standard for justifiable homicide.

what i'd point out is that a fist fight can easily turn deadly... or could lead to life altering injuries... particularly if the fight starts to turn in the advantage of one person and it turns into them pummeling you while on the ground.

i'd ask you guys to keep that in mind, because i think a lot of people fail to realize exactly how serious a situation like that is. i'd say the standard should be not that zimmerman has to prove his life was in danger, but rather that the potential for that danger seemed present as best as he could tell.

i don't think people should be required to wait until they can prove their life was about to end if they don't act... situations like that are far too risky and i'd say you should have to right to neutralize a potential threat before it reaches that level if they decide to break the law by initiating the use of force against you. at that point, to me, they forfeit their right to safety by attacking the safety of someone else. so i say if they get shot as a result then well that's sad but oh well. they brought it on themselves. similarly, you can get shot breaking into someone's house. even if you're unarmed. breaking into a house in and of itself isn't putting the life of the home owner in danger... but so far as the home owner can tell, this person might indeed be a threat to their life. because that is the behavior of a violent criminal with the potential intent to do them harm. so if they get shot during the B&E by a startled homeowner then that's their own fault, imo.

now where i sort of agree with you regarding zimmerman, is that he did seek out the conflict and so i think morally that makes him at fault for the resulting confrontation which then turned deadly... that being said... i don't know exactly what crime you could charge him with there. because the once the fight is on, his use of deadly force checks out as self defense. the fact that his actions lead to the fight have no bearing on whether or not the way he ended the assault with the use of deadly force was self defense. so to charge him with murder in that case is an over reach.

but i would have been fine if he was charged with some sort of reckless behavior crime... specifically for stalking trayvon with a weapon at night and all that. that should be illegal, fight or no fight, shooting or no shooting. cause it's hazardous and reckless. but if there's not a law against that at the time... then what can you do? there's no crime. you can't charge him. that's not a race thing. that's a problem with the law. if trayvon had been white, this legal problem doesn't disappear.

so turning it into a racial campaign is just shameless and opportunistic race baiting imo, and serves little purpose other than to provoke tribalism and stir the pot, presumably cause it gives certain people and organizations and interests more propaganda fodder and a new political bargaining chip.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Just going to say this: I think it's very dangerous if the grounds for making recourse to deadly force against an unarmed assailant is your own assessment of the situation. I think there should be a higher standard than that. Some people can get their ass kicked without losing their composure. For others, they might think their life is in danger after one punch. It's the latter group that are going to be responsible for most of these sorts of homicides.

at the end of the day i think all you can expect from people is that if their instinct tells them they are in danger they are going to respond accordingly

so there should be an understanding among everyone that if you get violent you are putting your own life at risk because someone is liable to respond lethally.

it's not like citizens are cops that can be expected to have training and understand when force is absolutely required

i will say if someone punches you once, you're standing there and you shoot them as a result, that's excessive force and should be like manslaughter or something. because you should at least have to give them a warning and say back off or i'll shoot. but if you aim the gun and issue a warning and they come back at you anyway, then yea, i'd say it's a justifiable use of force.

maybe it's just my upbringing or the schools i went to that make me feel this way... i mean there was a teacher at my school in 7th grade that was shot in the face and killed. the schools i went to were known for gang violence. and i've had people attack me before and been in situations where i could see myself being killed as a result...

so i can sympathize with the use of deadly force. "unarmed" is not an exemption from getting shot. just cause you are using more primitive forms of violence doesn't exempt you from lethal force.

it's like saying oh if he has a bat or a knife and you have a gun you shouldn't be able to shoot him cause he doesn't have a gun... so what are you supposed to do, try to wrestle the knife or bat away from them? admittedly that's not quite as extreme as a fist fight but i'd say the gap in extremity between a knife or bat vs a fist is about the same as the gap between a knife or bat vs a gun.

and so if you have someone who tries to fight you, then you have the right to take them down i think. at first, with your hands... but if you start to feel like you're losing control of the situation and they're not stopping in their assualt, then yes lethal force as self defense is justified.

i think kids should be taught early on the rules of combat and how they apply. because unfortunately being too pacifist/idealistic about the use of force can be just as dangerous as someone who is being trigger happy with the use of force.

I'll never understand the pro gun people. I don't give a shit if its a right or not, its stupid.

It's not naive and idealistic. If anything it's the opposite. It's recognizing that people don't always read a situation well, and sometimes people overreact. The odds of you getting murdered by fists and kicks are much lower than the odds of you murderering your enemy if you decide you want to draw on him because he's kicking your ass.

It's simply stupid to leave what counts as justified self-defense up to the person claiming self-defense. Not just stupid--insane.

well i think there should be a standard of what is considered a "reasonable" fear of your own safety

if that person is beating the shit out of you while you're on the floor, i'd say you've crossed that line where yea you have a reasonable fear for your safety

so the fact that you can't use less lethal force to stop the assault on your safety renders lethal force your only option... either that or just decide well i guess i'll get take the beating and hope they stop before anything serious happens to me.... which is an extremely silly choice imo

so you can say it's stupid, insane, etc etc. i don't really care. as far as i'm concerned, people who don't want to get shot should avoid acting like violent thugs.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well i think there should be a standard of what is considered a "reasonable" fear of your own safety

if that person is beating the shit out of you while you're on the floor, i'd say you've crossed that line where yea you have a reasonable fear for your safety

so the fact that you can't use less lethal force to stop the assault on your safety renders lethal force your only option... either that or just decide well i guess i'll get take the beating and hope they stop before anything serious happens to me.... which is an extremely silly choice imo

so you can say it's stupid, insane, etc etc. i don't really care. as far as i'm concerned, people who don't want to get shot should avoid acting like violent thugs.

I mean most scenarios are going to end up in a I said they said debate. The main problem is that the other person involved won't be able to share their story because they will be dead.

Also what is to prevent people from escalating the situation to deadly force in unreasonable circumstances such as a yelling match.

I hate the idea of telling people they need to become robots in all social situations because there is a legitimate fear of being shot if the person over reacts to any aggressive behaviour as life threatening.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Our media? You don't live here.

He means the Inspector Derrick, obviously.

Keep up with your german stereotypes, please.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To be fair, every German I've talked to has told me they only watch American movies because German cinema, while not bad (I like a lot of German films, particularly their comedies and political/historical dramas) doesn't really have much influence or prestige domestically.

So Dirty Harry probably is part of the German cultural consciousness, maybe not to the same degree as in America, but still extant.

Remember the German movie in Inglorious Bastards? It was not that bad. 😆

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34135267

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34135267