Welcome to Gaia! ::


Garbage

Riviera de la Mancha
Cassidy Peterson
I think the reason they're going for statutory rape off the bat and not "real" rape yet is that there's no way to argue it wasn't statutory, while they can argue it wasn't rape.

I think by "real" rape you mean something common law rape. There is no distinction between "real" or "fake" (?) rape, but I suppose that's the reason you used "..."...
Yeah sometimes I don't speak good the English and that's when the quotation marks come out.
Of course it's taken lightly, the victim is a 16 year old male. In this case, there's probably only any sort of prosecution because of the involvement of the other male.
The general attitude society has towards this sort of thing is typically "gee, they held you down and she gave you a b*****b and you're upset about it?".

Dapper Genius

5,875 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Riviera de la Mancha
Cassidy Peterson
I think the reason they're going for statutory rape off the bat and not "real" rape yet is that there's no way to argue it wasn't statutory, while they can argue it wasn't rape.

I think by "real" rape you mean something common law rape. There is no distinction between "real" or "fake" (?) rape, but I suppose that's the reason you used "..."...

It was probably a callback to the "legitimate rape" thing that conservatives were using for a while.

Dapper Genius

5,875 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Cassidy Peterson
Yeah sometimes I don't speak good the English

Who learned you to spoke English correct? "sometimes I don't spoke good the English".
PFth

Opinionated Lunatic

17,075 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cart Raider 100
This is an excellent example of the trivialization of male rape. Which I believe is just another aspect of rape culture.

In other words, this is outrageously unjust and the poor boy deserves justice and not to have the people who ruined his life and crushed his soul get nothing but a slap on their wrist.
nitznitz
This is an excellent example of the trivialization of male rape. Which I believe is just another aspect of rape culture.

In other words, this is outrageously unjust and the poor boy deserves justice and not to have the people who ruined his life and crushed his soul get nothing but a slap on their wrist.


It probably would have been prosecuted the same way if the victim was female.

Rape is notoriously hard to prosecute for both genders, assuming the victim even comes forward, which is already rare. It's too easy for rapists to simply claim that the victim wanted it and is lying about the rape claim afterwards.

Opinionated Lunatic

17,075 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cart Raider 100
Corrupting Clay
nitznitz
This is an excellent example of the trivialization of male rape. Which I believe is just another aspect of rape culture.

In other words, this is outrageously unjust and the poor boy deserves justice and not to have the people who ruined his life and crushed his soul get nothing but a slap on their wrist.


It probably would have been prosecuted the same way if the victim was female.

Rape is notoriously hard to prosecute for both genders, assuming the victim even comes forward, which is already rare. It's too easy for rapists to simply claim that the victim wanted it and is lying about the rape claim afterwards.


True, though I can't shake off the feeling it was treated more lightly cause the victim's male.
nitznitz
True, though I can't shake off the feeling it was treated more lightly cause the victim's male.


It does seem likely the victim is facing more social stigma for coming forward - men have a lower rate of reporting for sexual assault and rape because of just that reason. Hopefully it won't affect the case, if only because statutory rape is much more open and shut.
Might be that those are the charges they think can stick...
nitznitz
This is an excellent example of the trivialization of male rape. Which I believe is just another aspect of rape culture.

Well... yeah of course it is. Literally anyone educated on the subject will tell you that.
Suicidesoldier#1


A lot of high profile cases, such as the Zimmerman case, were lost largely due to the excessive charges laid against them. If they had tried him for manslaughter, he probably would have been convicted, but instead he was charged with murder, and due to the fact that he did call the police and have a reason to be suspicious of the teenager, probably legitimately thought he was a criminal, and despite instigating the fight and everything, didn't have malice, which is necessary for murder, or a desire to kill an innocent person. Although the boy wasn't a criminal (or at least didn't deserve to be shot), intent is very important in law, and distinguishes accidents, manslaughter, murder etc. and thus, the wrong charge was put up against Zimmerman. He killed someone unjustly, but not with malice, or the intent to do so, he's a dangerous reckless person, though.


That's a bizarre interpretation. Zimmerman didn't taunt Travyon, as far as I know, and didn't try to tackle or punch him first either. So apparently you're relying on the Safari Principle when it comes to law enforcement - If people would just stay in the car/house/whatever, and ignore whatever blacks are doing, everything will be okay. Don't bother the wild animals, and they won't attack you... Though of course the Safari Principle sounds pretty bigoted, assuming that merely sharing the same sidewalk will provoke blacks to a murderous rage.

Something else that apparently hasn't been discussed much is that Trayvon seemed to think Zimmerman was a gay ***** looking to have gay sex with him. So, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman, he might be on trial now for gay bashing, homophobic murder, and so forth. At least in terms of intent. Zimmerman wasn't gay, but if he was killed for being perceived as gay...

Fanatical Zealot

Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1


A lot of high profile cases, such as the Zimmerman case, were lost largely due to the excessive charges laid against them. If they had tried him for manslaughter, he probably would have been convicted, but instead he was charged with murder, and due to the fact that he did call the police and have a reason to be suspicious of the teenager, probably legitimately thought he was a criminal, and despite instigating the fight and everything, didn't have malice, which is necessary for murder, or a desire to kill an innocent person. Although the boy wasn't a criminal (or at least didn't deserve to be shot), intent is very important in law, and distinguishes accidents, manslaughter, murder etc. and thus, the wrong charge was put up against Zimmerman. He killed someone unjustly, but not with malice, or the intent to do so, he's a dangerous reckless person, though.


That's a bizarre interpretation. Zimmerman didn't taunt Travyon, as far as I know, and didn't try to tackle or punch him first either. So apparently you're relying on the Safari Principle when it comes to law enforcement - If people would just stay in the car/house/whatever, and ignore whatever blacks are doing, everything will be okay. Don't bother the wild animals, and they won't attack you... Though of course the Safari Principle sounds pretty bigoted, assuming that merely sharing the same sidewalk will provoke blacks to a murderous rage.

Something else that apparently hasn't been discussed much is that Trayvon seemed to think Zimmerman was a gay ***** looking to have gay sex with him. So, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman, he might be on trial now for gay bashing, homophobic murder, and so forth. At least in terms of intent. Zimmerman wasn't gay, but if he was killed for being perceived as gay...


He stalked the guy, several miles, to his house, followed him around corners, then confronted him and when he started to lose the fight- regardless of whoever started it, which almost all accounts say it was Zimmerman- he then shot him to death.

An unarmed 17 year old died in his own front yard because some lone wacko thought he was a murderer/bank robber/store clerk which, holy balls, you don't have a right to randomly hunt people down unless you actually saw them commit a crime, which he didn't even see anyone commit a crime. He just assumed he was a criminal based on how he looked.

Potential racism and bigotry aside, Zimmerman should have just called the police, and walked away. You only take matters in to your own hands when it's absolutely necessary, a guy walking down the street with skittles in his hands is absolutely a threat to no-one, at that point in time, and unless you have a clear sign of a threat, I.E. a gun, which even that is legal to carry in most places, there's no reason to call the police let alone follow the person.

If someone started following me to my house I'd get pretty creeped out too. I had a guy do it once, and I lost him by getting on to the free way and going super slow. He eventually had to fly past me, but I'm not kidding you, he slowed down right next to me for 10 seconds and I was on a bike. I literally stopped for 10 minutes on my bike and he just sat there, then I started going again, his car started moving. Weird a** s**t. Anyways, that's not an okay thing to do.
Suicidesoldier#1
Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1


A lot of high profile cases, such as the Zimmerman case, were lost largely due to the excessive charges laid against them. If they had tried him for manslaughter, he probably would have been convicted, but instead he was charged with murder, and due to the fact that he did call the police and have a reason to be suspicious of the teenager, probably legitimately thought he was a criminal, and despite instigating the fight and everything, didn't have malice, which is necessary for murder, or a desire to kill an innocent person. Although the boy wasn't a criminal (or at least didn't deserve to be shot), intent is very important in law, and distinguishes accidents, manslaughter, murder etc. and thus, the wrong charge was put up against Zimmerman. He killed someone unjustly, but not with malice, or the intent to do so, he's a dangerous reckless person, though.


That's a bizarre interpretation. Zimmerman didn't taunt Travyon, as far as I know, and didn't try to tackle or punch him first either. So apparently you're relying on the Safari Principle when it comes to law enforcement - If people would just stay in the car/house/whatever, and ignore whatever blacks are doing, everything will be okay. Don't bother the wild animals, and they won't attack you... Though of course the Safari Principle sounds pretty bigoted, assuming that merely sharing the same sidewalk will provoke blacks to a murderous rage.

Something else that apparently hasn't been discussed much is that Trayvon seemed to think Zimmerman was a gay ***** looking to have gay sex with him. So, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman, he might be on trial now for gay bashing, homophobic murder, and so forth. At least in terms of intent. Zimmerman wasn't gay, but if he was killed for being perceived as gay...


He stalked the guy, several miles, to his house, followed him around corners, then confronted him and when he started to lose the fight- regardless of whoever started it, which almost all accounts say it was Zimmerman- he then shot him to death.

An unarmed 17 year old died in his own front yard because some lone wacko thought he was a murderer/bank robber/store clerk which, holy balls, you don't have a right to randomly hunt people down unless you actually saw them commit a crime, which he didn't even see anyone commit a crime. He just assumed he was a criminal based on how he looked.

Potential racism and bigotry aside, Zimmerman should have just called the police, and walked away. You only take matters in to your own hands when it's absolutely necessary, a guy walking down the street with skittles in his hands is absolutely a threat to no-one, at that point in time, and unless you have a clear sign of a threat, I.E. a gun, which even that is legal to carry in most places, there's no reason to call the police let alone follow the person.

If someone started following me to my house I'd get pretty creeped out too. I had a guy do it once, and I lost him by getting on to the free way and going super slow. He eventually had to fly past me, but I'm not kidding you, he slowed down right next to me for 10 seconds and I was on a bike. I literally stopped for 10 minutes on my bike and he just sat there, then I started going again, his car started moving. Weird a** s**t. Anyways, that's not an okay thing to do.


Zimmerman's neighborhood had been having plenty of problems with crime, including a couple black thieves, so it wasn't entirely crazy for him to think maybe, possibly, this new black guy was looking to steal something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background_of_the_shooting

Fanatical Zealot

Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1
Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1


A lot of high profile cases, such as the Zimmerman case, were lost largely due to the excessive charges laid against them. If they had tried him for manslaughter, he probably would have been convicted, but instead he was charged with murder, and due to the fact that he did call the police and have a reason to be suspicious of the teenager, probably legitimately thought he was a criminal, and despite instigating the fight and everything, didn't have malice, which is necessary for murder, or a desire to kill an innocent person. Although the boy wasn't a criminal (or at least didn't deserve to be shot), intent is very important in law, and distinguishes accidents, manslaughter, murder etc. and thus, the wrong charge was put up against Zimmerman. He killed someone unjustly, but not with malice, or the intent to do so, he's a dangerous reckless person, though.


That's a bizarre interpretation. Zimmerman didn't taunt Travyon, as far as I know, and didn't try to tackle or punch him first either. So apparently you're relying on the Safari Principle when it comes to law enforcement - If people would just stay in the car/house/whatever, and ignore whatever blacks are doing, everything will be okay. Don't bother the wild animals, and they won't attack you... Though of course the Safari Principle sounds pretty bigoted, assuming that merely sharing the same sidewalk will provoke blacks to a murderous rage.

Something else that apparently hasn't been discussed much is that Trayvon seemed to think Zimmerman was a gay ***** looking to have gay sex with him. So, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman, he might be on trial now for gay bashing, homophobic murder, and so forth. At least in terms of intent. Zimmerman wasn't gay, but if he was killed for being perceived as gay...


He stalked the guy, several miles, to his house, followed him around corners, then confronted him and when he started to lose the fight- regardless of whoever started it, which almost all accounts say it was Zimmerman- he then shot him to death.

An unarmed 17 year old died in his own front yard because some lone wacko thought he was a murderer/bank robber/store clerk which, holy balls, you don't have a right to randomly hunt people down unless you actually saw them commit a crime, which he didn't even see anyone commit a crime. He just assumed he was a criminal based on how he looked.

Potential racism and bigotry aside, Zimmerman should have just called the police, and walked away. You only take matters in to your own hands when it's absolutely necessary, a guy walking down the street with skittles in his hands is absolutely a threat to no-one, at that point in time, and unless you have a clear sign of a threat, I.E. a gun, which even that is legal to carry in most places, there's no reason to call the police let alone follow the person.

If someone started following me to my house I'd get pretty creeped out too. I had a guy do it once, and I lost him by getting on to the free way and going super slow. He eventually had to fly past me, but I'm not kidding you, he slowed down right next to me for 10 seconds and I was on a bike. I literally stopped for 10 minutes on my bike and he just sat there, then I started going again, his car started moving. Weird a** s**t. Anyways, that's not an okay thing to do.


Zimmerman's neighborhood had been having plenty of problems with crime, including a couple black thieves, so it wasn't entirely crazy for him to think maybe, possibly, this new black guy was looking to steal something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background_of_the_shooting


Zimmerman problably wasn't evil, but he did have a hero complex, and randomly hunting down the first black dude you see and going, hey mang, how about I shoot him in his own front lawn, is pretty ridiculous.

The reason zimmerman got away was an overzealous prosecutor who accused him of being racist and literally used modified sound bytes in court. They pretty much had to let him go barbecue of that. She was trying to make a name for herself and failed epicly. That's why they should have got him on 3 charges, and went for a lesser one, like manslaughter. Intent is key, and his police phone call made it seem like he genuinely cared. It's not like you call in a hit to the police right before you do it, so it's clearly not like a gang thing or anything, right? But he was a dumbass, and being too much of a dumbass is illegal, hence why drunk driving, negligent manslaughter and the like are illegal.

At the very least he should be in some kind of facility away from society if he thinks you defend people by hunting down 17 year olds to their house and shooting them in chest after losing the fight.
Suicidesoldier#1
Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1
Kaltros
Suicidesoldier#1


A lot of high profile cases, such as the Zimmerman case, were lost largely due to the excessive charges laid against them. If they had tried him for manslaughter, he probably would have been convicted, but instead he was charged with murder, and due to the fact that he did call the police and have a reason to be suspicious of the teenager, probably legitimately thought he was a criminal, and despite instigating the fight and everything, didn't have malice, which is necessary for murder, or a desire to kill an innocent person. Although the boy wasn't a criminal (or at least didn't deserve to be shot), intent is very important in law, and distinguishes accidents, manslaughter, murder etc. and thus, the wrong charge was put up against Zimmerman. He killed someone unjustly, but not with malice, or the intent to do so, he's a dangerous reckless person, though.


That's a bizarre interpretation. Zimmerman didn't taunt Travyon, as far as I know, and didn't try to tackle or punch him first either. So apparently you're relying on the Safari Principle when it comes to law enforcement - If people would just stay in the car/house/whatever, and ignore whatever blacks are doing, everything will be okay. Don't bother the wild animals, and they won't attack you... Though of course the Safari Principle sounds pretty bigoted, assuming that merely sharing the same sidewalk will provoke blacks to a murderous rage.

Something else that apparently hasn't been discussed much is that Trayvon seemed to think Zimmerman was a gay ***** looking to have gay sex with him. So, if Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman, he might be on trial now for gay bashing, homophobic murder, and so forth. At least in terms of intent. Zimmerman wasn't gay, but if he was killed for being perceived as gay...


He stalked the guy, several miles, to his house, followed him around corners, then confronted him and when he started to lose the fight- regardless of whoever started it, which almost all accounts say it was Zimmerman- he then shot him to death.

An unarmed 17 year old died in his own front yard because some lone wacko thought he was a murderer/bank robber/store clerk which, holy balls, you don't have a right to randomly hunt people down unless you actually saw them commit a crime, which he didn't even see anyone commit a crime. He just assumed he was a criminal based on how he looked.

Potential racism and bigotry aside, Zimmerman should have just called the police, and walked away. You only take matters in to your own hands when it's absolutely necessary, a guy walking down the street with skittles in his hands is absolutely a threat to no-one, at that point in time, and unless you have a clear sign of a threat, I.E. a gun, which even that is legal to carry in most places, there's no reason to call the police let alone follow the person.

If someone started following me to my house I'd get pretty creeped out too. I had a guy do it once, and I lost him by getting on to the free way and going super slow. He eventually had to fly past me, but I'm not kidding you, he slowed down right next to me for 10 seconds and I was on a bike. I literally stopped for 10 minutes on my bike and he just sat there, then I started going again, his car started moving. Weird a** s**t. Anyways, that's not an okay thing to do.


Zimmerman's neighborhood had been having plenty of problems with crime, including a couple black thieves, so it wasn't entirely crazy for him to think maybe, possibly, this new black guy was looking to steal something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background_of_the_shooting


Zimmerman problably wasn't evil, but he did have a hero complex, and randomly hunting down the first black dude you see and going, hey mang, how about I shoot him in his own front lawn, is pretty ridiculous.

The reason zimmerman got away was an overzealous prosecutor who accused him of being racist and literally used modified sound bytes in court. They pretty much had to let him go barbecue of that. She was trying to make a name for herself and failed epicly. That's why they should have got him on 3 charges, and went for a lesser one, like manslaughter. Intent is key, and his police phone call made it seem like he genuinely cared. It's not like you call in a hit to the police right before you do it, so it's clearly not like a gang thing or anything, right? But he was a dumbass, and being too much of a dumbass is illegal, hence why drunk driving, negligent manslaughter and the like are illegal.

At the very least he should be in some kind of facility away from society if he thinks you defend people by hunting down 17 year olds to their house and shooting them in chest after losing the fight.


And what are you basing this idea on, that Zimmerman started the fight? What evidence is there of that?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum