Jeb Bush: Self defence dosen't cover teen's death

[Star_Cards]

What percentage of the prison population is black?
Would it be fair to say that point to black people being inherent criminals?

I don't know what percentage is black. It wouldn't be fair at all, but that doesn't mean that young drivers aren't more of a risk to insurance companies. Comparing experience and skin color isn't exactly the same as comparing apples to apples. Saying a person that's black is an inherent criminal is saying that solely by his skin color and nothing else. I get where you are going but saying that a 16 year old is more of a potential risk for car insurance takes many other things into factor... mostly inexperience in driving which is a fact the majority of the time. Of course that's not to say that a 16 year old can't be less of a risk than anyone else. I've only been in two accidents and it was when I was 26 and 35. I think you're missing the point that Taxman isn't saying that an older person is always going to act more rationally than a younger person. That was what he was saying as I read it. Anyone that would claim that would be crazy.

not to get hung up on car insurance rates... IF Martin attacked zimmerman as he was walking back to his car and zimmerman did nothing more than just follow martin, martin would, in my opinion, have acted irrationally in breaking his nose and continuing to beat him once he had zimmerman on the ground... if that is what actually happened. Now, I'd also agree that zimmerman acted irrationally in following a guy who he said he thought was on drugs and acting weird and reaching for his waste (I assumed zimmerman was concerned he was reaching for a weapon). If I'm concerned that a person may be easily provoked and carrying a weapon I'm not going to follow him around and especially not on foot.

[AUTaxMan]

I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

I am on no one's side. I want to know the truth. You, however, are CLEARLY on Martin's.

[Star_Cards]

I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

it's actually working both ways. That;'s why this is such a polarizing story. People already have vested interests in once side or the other for some reason. I am completely on the fence on the actual case. I have my opinions when thinking about different scenarios, but haven't on either side. to me it sounds like they both made quite a few very stupid mistakes.

[AUTaxMan]

I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

What this boils down to is that we have two differing opinions:

Mine - You cannot assume Martin would have acted like a reasonable person. Facts that we know: (a) Martin had discipline issues at school, (b) Martin was a thug or wannabe thug, and (c) Martin's posted a lot of ignorant/idiotic things on twitter. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to conclude that either (i) Martin lacked the perspective to understand the long-term implications of his behavior (typical of most teens), or (ii) Martin understood the consequences of his immature behavior and simply did not care about the consequences thereof. Based on either of those reasonable conclusions, I stand by my assertion that you cannot assume that Martin would have acted reasonably.

Yours - You have to assume that Martin would have acted reasonably.

Although you may disagree with it, mine has a reasonable basis. Yours has no basis in anything. In fact, we shouldn't be making any assumptions. We should be basing our opinions on the evidence.

[Wickabee]

I don't know what percentage is black. It wouldn't be fair at all, but that doesn't mean that young drivers aren't more of a risk to insurance companies. Comparing experience and skin color isn't exactly the same as comparing apples to apples. Saying a person that's black is an inherent criminal is saying that solely by his skin color and nothing else. I get where you are going but saying that a 16 year old is more of a potential risk for car insurance takes many other things into factor... mostly inexperience in driving which is a fact the majority of the time. Of course that's not to say that a 16 year old can't be less of a risk than anyone else. I've only been in two accidents and it was when I was 26 and 35. I think you're missing the point that Taxman isn't saying that an older person is always going to act more rationally than a younger person. That was what he was saying as I read it. Anyone that would claim that would be crazy.

not to get hung up on car insurance rates... IF Martin attacked zimmerman as he was walking back to his car and zimmerman did nothing more than just follow martin, martin would, in my opinion, have acted irrationally in breaking his nose and continuing to beat him once he had zimmerman on the ground... if that is what actually happened. Now, I'd also agree that zimmerman acted irrationally in following a guy who he said he thought was on drugs and acting weird and reaching for his waste (I assumed zimmerman was concerned he was reaching for a weapon). If I'm concerned that a person may be easily provoked and carrying a weapon I'm not going to follow him around and especially not on foot.

If you want to go to car insurance, fine. Did you know people with red vehicles have higher rates?
Is it fair to raise rates based on vehicle colour?

My city is full of retirees and every so often one of them actually drives into a building. No teenagers that I know of have done that here, yet they have higher rates, does that make sense?

If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

I'm not saying the will always, in the end, side with the adult, but they do make it 1000 times more difficult on the teen, simply for lack of age. Not wisdom, not maturity, not credibility but age.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

[AUTaxMan]

If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

No, you are actually pre-judging me based on one comment that I made that you clearly do not understand. Actually, all I care about is the evidence. You care about getting Zimmerman convicted.

[BGT Masters]

If you want to go to car insurance, fine. Did you know people with red vehicles have higher rates?
Is it fair to raise rates based on vehicle colour?

My city is full of retirees and every so often one of them actually drives into a building. No teenagers that I know of have done that here, yet they have higher rates, does that make sense?

If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

I'm not saying the will always, in the end, side with the adult, but they do make it 1000 times more difficult on the teen, simply for lack of age. Not wisdom, not maturity, not credibility but age.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

This is untrue by the way. One of many misconceptions based on rumor and not facts. Matter of fact I don't believe my insurance company has ever, EVER asked what color car I even drive. Its a myth.

[Wickabee]

No, you are actually pre-judging me based on one comment that I made that you clearly do not understand. Actually, all I care about is the evidence. You care about getting Zimmerman convicted.

I don't care if he's convicted or walks free.
What I do care about is people who are prejudiced pretending they're not. Ie: You.

And yes I am basing it on one post. The post where you admitted your bias. If anyone isn't understanding, it's you who isn't understanding me, but I would venture to guess you aren't to worried about understanding others.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Here are the facts as I understand them. I am not going to document them, because I don't have time, but here is what we know.

1. Martin was walking down the street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, and he had been at a convenience store.

2. Zimmerman saw him walking, started following Martin, and phoned the police.

3. The 911 operator told him to stop following Martin.

4. Witness says there was yelling, and a fight occurred.

5. Witness says one guy was beating the other, and the assailee was crying for help (presumably Martin beating Zimmerman).

6. Police report says Zimmerman had a wet shirt and injuries to the nose and the back of his head.

7. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

8. Funeral director says Martin had no signs of injury to his face or hands.

9. Zimmerman says he stopped following Martin and that Martin later confronted him and assaulted him.

10. Zimmerman is an idiot cop wannabe, but that doesn't mean that he is lying.

11. Martin appears to have been a punk teenager, but that doesn't mean he assaulted Zimmerman.

You have to draw your own conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses.

Well done. Everything beyond this is speculation, whether in favor of one person or the other. Here is why I have the opinions I do:

From what else I have read, Martin was 6'3" and between 140 to 160 pounds whereas Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250. Also, given that Zimmerman had taken law enforcement courses, one would think he could defend himself against a skinny teenager without shooting him to death. So that is why I am reluctant to take his self-defense argument.

[BGT Masters]

Well done. Everything beyond this is speculation, whether in favor of one person or the other. Here is why I have the opinions I do:

From what else I have read, Martin was 6'3" and between 140 to 160 pounds whereas Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250. Also, given that Zimmerman had taken law enforcement courses, one would think he could defend himself against a skinny teenager without shooting him to death. So that is why I am reluctant to take his self-defense argument.

I took a couple years of criminal justice courses and they never taught self defense or how to fight. I guess it all depends on what courses he took. The video of Zimmerman sure didn't make it look like he weighs 250 pounds. Even if he does, who cares. I have friends that weigh 50-80 more than I do and when we get rowdy I have no problem man handling some of them. I'm 180, 6ft tall in between Greg and Trayvon. If someone is on top of you and has a good reach advantage thats all it can take. Its all going to come down to who's voice we hear screaming for help for about a minute or so. If its George's it just helps his case, if its Trayvon's well then it changes everything.