User talk:Intrepid-NY
 | If I've left a message on your talk page, and you would like to respond, please do so there. If you leave a message here on my talk page, any response I make will be here. This will keep our discussion in one place so it's easier to read. Thank You. |
Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Intrepid (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
duty to retreat
[edit]Hey, saw your post about duty to retreat. The clarification is fine, but FYI most commentators are saying that duty to retreat/stand your ground is not a factor in the case.
Once on the ground, Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat any longer. The only questions are three really. 1) Was whatever Martin was doing threating enough to be considered a reasonable imminent threat to life or significant injury. 2) Does Zimmerman's earlier actions count as instigating the event, which would remove his self defense protections. This depends highly on 3) the exact circumstances of how their physical confrontation began, which is unknown (but we have zimmerman's account).
Either Zimmerman was leaving, and martin attacked from behind (zimmerman's account)
Or zimmerman started something with Martin (pure conjecture devil's advocate)
In either case SYG does not enter. (although in the second case, Martin might possibly have had a SYG defense for fighting Zimmerman, and Zimmerman would not have justification for shooting).
Obviously all WP:OR (although this same analysis has been done by some semi-RS) so not valuable for inclusion in the article, but you might be interested.
Gaijin42 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 3-30-12 Tagged
- Yes, I mostly agree with your analysis. I'm an attorney and just wanted to make sure the law was explained correctly. By the way, even if Zimmerman's earlier actions instigated the event, it would not necessarily remove his self defense protection if he was subsequently attacked by Martin. For example, let's say Zimmerman instigated an unprovoked fist fight with Martin. Sometime later, while Zimmerman is walking back to his car, Martin comes at him with a knife. Zimmerman takes out his gun and shoots. Even though Zimmerman previously instigated the event, Zimmerman still has the right to self defense protections.
- In this hypothetical, let's say it occurred in a non-SYG state (like NY). If Zimmerman saw Martin coming and had time to get into his car, lock the door and drive away, he would be required to do so.
- It will be interesting to see what the grand jury or state attorney determines. Based on what I've read, I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for an indictment. Although, I wonder if Zimmerman reasonably feared great bodily harm or death. Perhaps after being punched in the nose, he was dazed and unable to defend himself.
- Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm a fairly new contributor.
- Intrepid-NY (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
License tagging for File:George Zimmerman 3-30-12.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:George Zimmerman 3-30-12.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Skittles
[edit]Hi. I initially thought it was irrelevant when I changed to snacks, but later I saw a picture of protesters holding up bags of Skittles, so it looks like it is relevant because it is a symbol for protest and has been used in rhetoric by notable people on the pro-Martin side. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, normally irrelavent, but in the context of being picked up by the protesters as an image, is relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if that's the reason I'll agree that it's relevent. I've reverted my edit. However, I must say that I've always believed that the initial picture of Martin as young child along with the "Skittles" comments were prejudicial toward Zimmerman from the start. Intrepid-NY (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Intrepid-NY. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Intrepid-NY. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Intrepid-NY. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)