George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from xxxcrwn. Show xxxcrwn's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    I guess he does not understand the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The guy who forced a scrawny teen (look at his photos, the kid was a stick) to either flight or fight. And it appears the kid tried flight first but when Zimmerman continued to pretend to be Dirty Harry the kid thuoght fight was his last chance.


    So much incorrect information. Not just this post but others too. TM ran away from GZ. He was gone & right at his dad's place, which was much father away than half way from where he ran from. Rachael Gentel testified she told him to go in to the house since he was there to avoid trouble, & discussed GZ being a "gay rapist". TM decided on his own not to go into the house, but to double back & jump GZ, possibly because he was gay. At the very least it's an assault. At the most it's a hate crime if he thought he was beating a gay man. He was also in the 7-11 purchasing 2 of the 3 ingredients to make "Lean", which he talked about with friends on his FB page. Coincidently all of TM's social media pages were scrubbed before the trial, but there are still plenty of people who made screen captures of the evidence.

    Oh, & the prosecution tried to scrub evidence from TM's cell phone & got caught. That's one reason why state attorney Angela Corey was herself indicted by a grand jury. The other was the deletion, destruction, & withholding key evidence that would destroy her case. So much misconduct on the prosecutions side, that it's amazing the judge didn't toss the case. But, that's not what you do in a witch hunt.

    Even the 7-11 employee is looking at him odd.

    http://rolandmartinreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvonmartin-711.jpg





     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FLY2K. Show FLY2K's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  



    I agree with you

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Here (from the website of the Florida state legislature and in blue type below) is the portion of Florida's self-defense law that applies when self-defense is not in one's home (the phrase "in any other place" is there because the preceding paragraphs are talking about self-defense during a break-in).

    Under this expansive law, Zimerman, if he were attacked, would have had the right to defend himself, meeting force with force, with no responsibility to retreat had he simply believed he was under threat of death or great bodily harm or was preventing a forcible felony.  There is no provision for proportionality of force--and the right rests purely on one's own "reasonable belief" of being in grave danger, not actually being in grave danger. 

    I'm not a lawyer, but as far as Martin's right to hit Zimmerman, it depends on how you define an "attack" and how you interpret the right to "meet force with force."  A lot of that would, I think, depend on how Zimmerman approached Martin and unfortunately there is no evidence other than Zimmerman's story (which may or may not be true).  If in the way Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin could reasonably believe he was under attack and threatened with force, I think he would have had a right to fight (and no obligation to retreat) under this expansive law.

    Regardless, the law seems misguided to me.  If you shoot and kill someone in a public place, to claim self-defense you should have to show that (1) you really were under physical attack and the threat of death or grave bodily harm was real and not just your belief, (2) that you had done nothing to provoke that attack or that could be construed as physically threatening to the person you shot prior to that person attacking you, and (3) that you had done everything you could to retreat or avoid having to kill, not just at the time the shooting occured, but from the time the encounter began to become threatening to you or the other person. You should have a duty to withdraw rather than confront at all stages in an encounter.  I would have a less demanding standard of self defense in the case of break-ins.  But  shooting and killing someone in a public place where the killed person has a right to be, even in self-defense, should be looked at as a very serious action that can be justified only in very limited circumstances.  

    Simply put, the law seems to encourage escalation of conflict rather than retreat.  That's completely misguided.  The law should create a duty of both parties to retreat as early as possible when a potentially violent conflict could arise to avoid any fatal violence from occuring.  This law does the exact opposite and seems to make the choice to use of deadly force easier rather than more difficult.  In fact, we know that is exactly what the Florida legislature intended.  Too many Americans. sadly, like the idea of using deadly force and hence laws like this that encourage the use of force are becoming more common.  It's a choice we, as Americans, have to make.  What kind of society do we want to live in?  

     

        (3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    That is wrong. I am sorry but absolutely wrong: You do not need to be hurt before you defend yourself. Do you have to wait till you are hurt... or shot... in order to pull out a gun? No. If you pull out a gun in self defense it is to avoid being shot. Similarly, and by the way much less deadly, you can defend yourself if you believe you are in danger.

     



    So, say you are walking through a the Fen's late at night and notice a lady drop her purse but she is a ways up from you. You pick up her purse and start to jog a bit to ctach up with her. Say you are a bit obese and this act leaves you having a bit of trouble yelling, hey you dropped your purse. Right as you start to get close to her see turns around claws you in the face with her keys, kicks you in the balls, and maces you on the ground. She did nothing wrong right? She was just defending herself right?

    I'm guessing you don't have a CCW because one of the things they mention over and over again is that you cannot draw your weapon unless there is an actually crime being committed or that you feel your life is in mortal damage at that moment. Of course if someone is threatening you with a weapon you have the right to draw your gun. What you can't do is seeing someone following you without any indication of intent you can't draw on them. There has to be a reason other than, this person was creeping me out to draw a weapon on someone same as there has to be more than a reason than this "creepy a** cracker" to jump someone. I suggest you take a course in self defense as they go through the rules of when it's appropriate to take action and when it's not. Someone following you is enough reason to call the cops (Martin had a phone) and report suspecious activity but it does not mean you can turn around and start pounding on the person 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Good article here.  Emphasizes how much this is a choice about the kind of society we want to create for ourselves.

     http://prospect.org/article/history-floridas-stand-your-ground-law

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    They were so severe, Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital. 

     

    Your misguided ravings are completely impotent . . . but George Zimmerman's irresponsible carrying of a weapon and his baseless suspicions directly led to a killing.  Of course, you don't think a killing is all that problematic.  You didn't think the Newtown shootings were all that big deal either.  Much rather protect the "right" of crazy people and incompetents to carry weapons around . . . 

    Yep, yep . . . you really are the voice of reason . . . 



    The kid who committed the Newtown shooting was in possession of his mothers guns illegally. He didn't have the license to carry or own firearms his mother did. Truth is criminals who aren't suppose to own guns in the first place are the vast majority of those who commit these crimes to begin with. The other stat most people tend to forget is when a citizen is the first one on the scene with a firearm the death rate in these mass shootings is under 5. When police are the first on the scene with firearms the death rate averages between 15-20 people. The reason is simple, the shooters pick soft targets and tend to kill themselves if confronted with force. Police take time to get to the scene, then they have to form a containment area and assess the situation before advancing and confrontation. Most citizens with right to carry are already at the scene as it happens and is able to end it quickly with the mear threat of a gun. BTW, we protect or politicians, banks, and movie stars with guns and police/private forces but we won't protect or softest targets, kids, with them? That deosn't seem a bit messed up to you?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

     

     

     

    That is wrong. I am sorry but absolutely wrong: You do not need to be hurt before you defend yourself. Do you have to wait till you are hurt... or shot... in order to pull out a gun? No. If you pull out a gun in self defense it is to avoid being shot. Similarly, and by the way much less deadly, you can defend yourself if you believe you are in danger.

     

     

     



    So, say you are walking through a the Fen's late at night and notice a lady drop her purse but she is a ways up from you. You pick up her purse and start to jog a bit to ctach up with her. Say you are a bit obese and this act leaves you having a bit of trouble yelling, hey you dropped your purse. Right as you start to get close to her see turns around claws you in the face with her keys, kicks you in the balls, and maces you on the ground. She did nothing wrong right? She was just defending herself right?

     

     

    I'm guessing you don't have a CCW because one of the things they mention over and over again is that you cannot draw your weapon unless there is an actually crime being committed or that you feel your life is in mortal damage at that moment. Of course if someone is threatening you with a weapon you have the right to draw your gun. What you can't do is seeing someone following you without any indication of intent you can't draw on them. There has to be a reason other than, this person was creeping me out to draw a weapon on someone same as there has to be more than a reason than this "creepy a** cracker" to jump someone. I suggest you take a course in self defense as they go through the rules of when it's appropriate to take action and when it's not. Someone following you is enough reason to call the cops (Martin had a phone) and report suspecious activity but it does not mean you can turn around and start pounding on the person 

     




     

    In many legal codes you would still have a duty to retreat if possible before killing--and even a duty to retreat before the point the conflict escalated.  Florida's law abolishes the duty to retreat.  This is what's problematic about the law in my opinion.  In my opinion, you should be required to do everything to diffuse, avoid, and retreat from a conflict (in a public place) before killing.  

    Ultimately, we need to decide if we think the outcome of this encounter--Martin's death--was good or bad and write our laws accordingly.  I am unequivocably on the side that the outcome was bad and the law should be rewritten to discourage rather than encourage the use of deadly force in situations like that which arose between Martin and Zimmerman.  

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Here (from the website of the Florida state legislature and in blue type below) is the portion of Florida's self-defense law that applies when self-defense is not in one's home (the phrase "in any other place" is there because the preceding paragraphs are talking about self-defense during a break-in).

    Under this expansive law, Zimerman, if he were attacked, would have had the right to defend himself, meeting force with force, with no responsibility to retreat had he simply believed he was under threat of death or great bodily harm or was preventing a forcible felony.  There is no provision for proportionality of force--and the right rests purely on one's own "reasonable belief" of being in grave danger, not actually being in grave danger. 

    I'm not a lawyer, but as far as Martin's right to hit Zimmerman, it depends on how you define an "attack" and how you interpret the right to "meet force with force."  A lot of that would, I think, depend on how Zimmerman approached Martin and unfortunately there is no evidence other than Zimmerman's story (which may or may not be true).  If in the way Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin could reasonably believe he was under attack and threatened with force, I think he would have had a right to fight (and no obligation to retreat) under this expansive law.

    Regardless, the law seems misguided to me.  If you shoot and kill someone in a public place, to claim self-defense you should have to show that (1) you really were under physical attack and the threat of death or grave bodily harm was real and not just your belief, (2) that you had done nothing to provoke that attack or that could be construed as physically threatening to the person you shot prior to that person attacking you, and (3) that you had done everything you could to retreat or avoid having to kill, not just at the time the shooting occured, but from the time the encounter began to become threatening to you or the other person. You should have a duty to withdraw rather than confront at all stages in an encounter.  I would have a less demanding standard of self defense in the case of break-ins.  But  shooting and killing someone in a public place where the killed person has a right to be, even in self-defense, should be looked at as a very serious action that can be justified only in very limited circumstances.  

    Simply put, the law seems to encourage escalation of conflict rather than retreat.  That's completely misguided.  The law should create a duty of both parties to retreat as early as possible when a potentially violent conflict could arise to avoid any fatal violence from occuring.  This law does the exact opposite and seems to make the choice to use of deadly force easier rather than more difficult.  In fact, we know that is exactly what the Florida legislature intended.  Too many Americans. sadly, like the idea of using deadly force and hence laws like this that encourage the use of force are becoming more common.  It's a choice we, as Americans, have to make.  What kind of society do we want to live in?  

     

        (3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.  




    That's just silly.  How is it advocating violence?

    The violence is ALREADY occurring.

    Are you saying the law should place restrictions on what the victim can do while he's getting his head bashed in?

    Imagine a world where a perp has the law on his side because he knows the victim has no legal right to defend himself.  WOW!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     




    That's just silly.  How is it advocating violence?

     

    The violence is ALREADY occurring.

    Are you saying the law should place restrictions on what the victim can do while he's getting his head bashed in?

    Imagine a world where a perp has the law on his side because he knows the victim has no legal right to defend himself.  WOW!

    [/QUOTE]

    I suggest visiting other parts of the world where duty to retreat is still law.  

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Personally, and I say this is my personal belief, I think that GZ created a situation that caused TM to feel that he had to defend himself, thereby causing the altercation that led to the shooting.  Under those conditions, I don't think self-defense is a legitimate claim.

    However, I also know that we cannot, and never will, know what TM's thoughts or beliefs were just prior to the altercation--nor perhaps who actually struck first.  As a result, there was not enough evidence to convict GZ of even manslaughter.  All arguments saying that TM was justifiably defending himself are based on speculation of what TM was thinking or feeling, or what actions GZ might have taken to provoke the altercation.  Since TM is not around to tell his version, and there apparently was no solid forensic evidence to contradict GZ's version of things.

    In the same vein, all claims that TM would still be alive had he just kept walking are also based on speculation--no one knows what GZ might have done under those conditions. 

    As for those arguing that TM had no right under those conditions to strike, I disagree--but again, that is based on my personal belief of what might have occurred.  For me, I would be in fear had I known someone was following me in a vehicle, that person had gotten out of the vehicle and began following me on foot, they "confronted" me in some manner, and I could see they were carrying (gun not drawn doesn't mean the gun wasn't visible).  BUT, that is my speculation.  Under those conditions, GZ might have been guilty of assault at that point.  Look up the general definition of it.

    AGAIN, JUST MY OPINION.  Others believe differently, and I have no argument with that.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     




    That's just silly.  How is it advocating violence?

     

     

    The violence is ALREADY occurring.

    Are you saying the law should place restrictions on what the victim can do while he's getting his head bashed in?

    Imagine a world where a perp has the law on his side because he knows the victim has no legal right to defend himself.  WOW!



    I suggest visiting other parts of the world where duty to retreat is still law.  

     




    So the victim( the guy getting his head bashed in which may have resulted in death if continued) is the only one with the duty to retreat?  I see.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In many legal codes you would still have a duty to retreat if possible before killing--and even a duty to retreat before the point the conflict escalated.  Florida's law abolishes the duty to retreat.  This is what's problematic about the law in my opinion.  In my opinion, you should be required to do everything to diffuse, avoid, and retreat from a conflict (in a public place) before killing.  

    Ultimately, we need to decide if we think the outcome of this encounter--Martin's death--was good or bad and write our laws accordingly.  I am unequivocably on the side that the outcome was bad and the law should be rewritten to discourage rather than encourage the use of deadly force in situations like that which arose between Martin and Zimmerman.  

     



    I can tell you from personal experience, trying to flee leaves you defenseless. It's much easier for someone to jump you and do some real damage. Turning your back on a threat, unless you are absolutely sure you can out run them, is the worst possible move you can make. Should you flee when you have a chance to get out of situation, of course, but turning and facing the damage also gives you the best chance of defending yourself or even avoiding it. Did you know someone in NH tried to make it illegal for you to do anything but run away. If someone hit you and you didn't do everything possible to get away you could be arrested for defending yourself? Now it was shot down extremely quickly but all that does is empowers the criminals who don't follow the laws to begin with and gives them power over citizens. Stand your ground is an attempt to blance that power back to the citizens giving them legal protection to defend themselves or others during moments of damage. Of course there are always going to be cases like this, as nothings black or white, but the question is the ratio of how much the law helps people to defend themselves vs how many of these cases occur. If you wanted these actions to stop try lowering crime across the board and there would be no need for these types of laws. We hear about this case because of the media attention but what about all the other cases where someone was saved because they chose to stand their ground or help saved others for the same reason. Cherry picking media driven cases is not the best way to judge the law. You have to look at it in a broader sense and all data says that in areas where citizens are given more power to defend themselves crime rates drop. Areas that make it more restrictive for citizens to defend themselves crime rates go up.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    That's just silly.  How is it advocating violence?

     

     

     

     

    The violence is ALREADY occurring.

    Are you saying the law should place restrictions on what the victim can do while he's getting his head bashed in?

    Imagine a world where a perp has the law on his side because he knows the victim has no legal right to defend himself.  WOW!

     

     



    I suggest visiting other parts of the world where duty to retreat is still law.  

     

     

     

     




    So the victim( the guy getting his head bashed in which may have resulted in death if continued) is the only one with the duty to retreat?  I see.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, both have the duty.  You better have fulfilled that duty, though, before you kill someone. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowingly create a situation where TM felt threatened?

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    Here (from the website of the Florida state legislature and in blue type below) is the portion of Florida's self-defense law that applies when self-defense is not in one's home (the phrase "in any other place" is there because the preceding paragraphs are talking about self-defense during a break-in).

    Under this expansive law, Zimerman, if he were attacked, would have had the right to defend himself, meeting force with force, with no responsibility to retreat had he simply believed he was under threat of death or great bodily harm or was preventing a forcible felony.  There is no provision for proportionality of force--and the right rests purely on one's own "reasonable belief" of being in grave danger, not actually being in grave danger. 

    I'm not a lawyer, but as far as Martin's right to hit Zimmerman, it depends on how you define an "attack" and how you interpret the right to "meet force with force."  A lot of that would, I think, depend on how Zimmerman approached Martin and unfortunately there is no evidence other than Zimmerman's story (which may or may not be true).  If in the way Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin could reasonably believe he was under attack and threatened with force, I think he would have had a right to fight (and no obligation to retreat) under this expansive law.

    Regardless, the law seems misguided to me.  If you shoot and kill someone in a public place, to claim self-defense you should have to show that (1) you really were under physical attack and the threat of death or grave bodily harm was real and not just your belief, (2) that you had done nothing to provoke that attack or that could be construed as physically threatening to the person you shot prior to that person attacking you, and (3) that you had done everything you could to retreat or avoid having to kill, not just at the time the shooting occured, but from the time the encounter began to become threatening to you or the other person. You should have a duty to withdraw rather than confront at all stages in an encounter.  I would have a less demanding standard of self defense in the case of break-ins.  But  shooting and killing someone in a public place where the killed person has a right to be, even in self-defense, should be looked at as a very serious action that can be justified only in very limited circumstances.  

    Simply put, the law seems to encourage escalation of conflict rather than retreat.  That's completely misguided.  The law should create a duty of both parties to retreat as early as possible when a potentially violent conflict could arise to avoid any fatal violence from occuring.  This law does the exact opposite and seems to make the choice to use of deadly force easier rather than more difficult.  In fact, we know that is exactly what the Florida legislature intended.  Too many Americans. sadly, like the idea of using deadly force and hence laws like this that encourage the use of force are becoming more common.  It's a choice we, as Americans, have to make.  What kind of society do we want to live in?  

     

        (3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.  

     

     




    That's just silly.  How is it advocating violence?

     

     

    The violence is ALREADY occurring.

    Are you saying the law should place restrictions on what the victim can do while he's getting his head bashed in?

    Imagine a world where a perp has the law on his side because he knows the victim has no legal right to defend himself.  WOW!

     



    The actual real victim is dead. THe guy who had his "head bbashed in" had a couple of little baby cuts.

     

    Ever played a contact sport or even been in a non deadly fist fight? THe injuries Zimmerman received were so lame one has to wonder whether he is such a woos that his whole life is to prove to everyone (himself?) that he is a man. Totally lame. Totally.

    And the dead teen is not a victim? It would be funny if it weren't so ... fill in your own words.

     

    I do get the points made about the specific Florida law. ANd Agree completely that it is a rediculous law written and passed by rediculous clowns. Perhaps we should turn a place like Tombstone, NV into a territory - like an Indian reservation inn that it has separate rule of law from the state - where people can live if they want to play being Clint Eastwood with real guns. As for legitimate men who own legitimate guns and are responsible folk, I have no problem.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     



    I can tell you from personal experience, trying to flee leaves you defenseless. It's much easier for someone to jump you and do some real damage. Turning your back on a threat, unless you are absolutely sure you can out run them, is the worst possible move you can make. Should you flee when you have a chance to get out of situation, of course, but turning and facing the damage also gives you the best chance of defending yourself or even avoiding it.

    The duty to retreat is as much about disengaging from conflict before it escalates as it is about "fleeing." As far as whether running or confronting is "tactically" better or worse depends on specific circumstances.  Generally, though, disengaging and avoiding provocation is safer than engaging or provoking.  In Zimmerman's case, simply remaining in his car would have likely kept both men from harm.  Zimmerman had an easy way to avoid the confrontation and didn't take advantage of it.  In my opinion, that  decision should weaken his ability to claim self defense.  I know Florida law says otherwise, but my objection is to the law, not to the jury's decision.

    Did you know someone in NH tried to make it illegal for you to do anything but run away. If someone hit you and you didn't do everything possible to get away you could be arrested for defending yourself? Now it was shot down extremely quickly but all that does is empowers the criminals who don't follow the laws to begin with and gives them power over citizens. Stand your ground is an attempt to blance that power back to the citizens giving them legal protection to defend themselves or others during moments of damage. Of course there are always going to be cases like this, as nothings black or white, but the question is the ratio of how much the law helps people to defend themselves vs how many of these cases occur. If you wanted these actions to stop try lowering crime across the board and there would be no need for these types of laws. We hear about this case because of the media attention but what about all the other cases where someone was saved because they chose to stand their ground or help saved others for the same reason. Cherry picking media driven cases is not the best way to judge the law. You have to look at it in a broader sense and all data says that in areas where citizens are given more power to defend themselves crime rates drop. Areas that make it more restrictive for citizens to defend themselves crime rates go up.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's a lot of dispute about the effect of these types of laws on crime rates.  Here's an article with the opposite view of the one you present.  Personally, I think these expansive self-defense laws reinforce a culture of violence and aggressiveness.  To me, the solution is to change the culture.  These laws, therefore, take us in the wrong direction in my opinion.  

    http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     

     




    You make a good point --it is absurd the way the law reads. Thats why I live in Idaho. Besides Florida there are other states I would nevr live in Like Texas and Calif. In Idaho a lot of people have weapons so people pretty much don't start stupid sh-t or do a lot of home break-ins because they know what's behind those doors!!!!

     

     

     

     

     



    What's wrong with Texas? like idaho, lots of people own guns. nothing wrong with that, it is our right as citizens. Take what prolate said in context. He is Canadian or lives in Canada. They don't have a 2nd amendment, we do. Zimmerman didn't know Martin was unarmed when he pursued him. Martin initiated the conflict per the evidence, hence the right to defend oneself. What don't you understand prolate? 

     

     

     

     



    I guess he does not understand the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The guy who forced a scrawny teen (look at his photos, the kid was a stick) to either flight or fight. And it appears the kid tried flight first but when Zimmerman continued to pretend to be Dirty Harry the kid thuoght fight was his last chance.

     

    Zimmerman caused the conflict. At the very least it was negligent homicide. I think more than that but at least negligent homicide.

     



    Not the conclusion the jury arrived at and unlike us, they had all the evidence.m

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

     



    I can tell you from personal experience, trying to flee leaves you defenseless. It's much easier for someone to jump you and do some real damage. Turning your back on a threat, unless you are absolutely sure you can out run them, is the worst possible move you can make. Should you flee when you have a chance to get out of situation, of course, but turning and facing the damage also gives you the best chance of defending yourself or even avoiding it.

     

    The duty to retreat is as much about disengaging from conflict before it escalates as it is about "fleeing." As far as whether running or confronting is "tactically" better or worse depends on specific circumstances.  Generally, though, disengaging and avoiding provocation is safer than engaging or provoking.  In Zimmerman's case, simply remaining in his car would have likely kept both men from harm.  Zimmerman had an easy way to avoid the confrontation and didn't take advantage of it.  In my opinion, that  decision should weaken his ability to claim self defense.  I know Florida law says otherwise, but my objection is to the law, not to the jury's decision.

    It's already been proven Martin out ran Zimmerman and was close to his house. Martin turned back and went after Zimmerman at that point. Martin has a share in the blame too. Just as much as Zimmerman getting out of his car is a mistake, Martin turning and fighting instead of properly assessing the situation and either talking or continuing to flee a man that he obviously could get away from was a way to avoid the confrontation too. You are completely correct that it depends on the circumstances and as I said if you are sure you can get away by fleeing, which in Martins case he could, you should or if you have the oppurtunity to flee you should. But fleeing instantly isn't always the right choice and sometimes is not possible at that moment. The stand your ground laws protects a person from moments in which fleeing adds danger to yourself or another individuals or is impossible at that moment. It's not meant to be a law that encourages you to charge towards danger.

    Did you know someone in NH tried to make it illegal for you to do anything but run away. If someone hit you and you didn't do everything possible to get away you could be arrested for defending yourself? Now it was shot down extremely quickly but all that does is empowers the criminals who don't follow the laws to begin with and gives them power over citizens. Stand your ground is an attempt to blance that power back to the citizens giving them legal protection to defend themselves or others during moments of damage. Of course there are always going to be cases like this, as nothings black or white, but the question is the ratio of how much the law helps people to defend themselves vs how many of these cases occur. If you wanted these actions to stop try lowering crime across the board and there would be no need for these types of laws. We hear about this case because of the media attention but what about all the other cases where someone was saved because they chose to stand their ground or help saved others for the same reason. Cherry picking media driven cases is not the best way to judge the law. You have to look at it in a broader sense and all data says that in areas where citizens are given more power to defend themselves crime rates drop. Areas that make it more restrictive for citizens to defend themselves crime rates go up.

     



    There's a lot of dispute about the effect of these types of laws on crime rates.  Here's an article with the opposite view of the one you present.  Personally, I think these expansive self-defense laws reinforce a culture of violence and aggressiveness.  To me, the solution is to change the culture.  These laws, therefore, take us in the wrong direction in my opinion.  

    http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

     



    We both could pull out articles that points one way or another. That's the bad things about statistics they lie as bad as politicans depending on which stance you take. So I guess we have to agree to disagree. But, imo criminals don't follow laws and don't care about you so I'm all for any law that gives citizens more protection to protect themselves and gives them the option of flee, talk, or fight depending on how they see the situation at that moment. IMO the more you try to reduce a law abiding citizens ability to make that choice by forcing them into one of the situations the more you are restricting their ability to protect themselves and their neighbors. Unfortunately no law is perfect and no matter what you try tragedies like these will happen. I bet if either of us looked we can find cases in which someone ended up dead because they tried to flee or that someone didn't get involved helping another person under fear of getting charged with assault themselves. For example a typical bar fight spills into the street and it's 3 on 1. That 1 person could end up being beaten to death however if someone jumps in to defend them it's not actually considered self defense because their personal body was not in danger. This has happened before and someone who jumped in to help were arrested for assault and jailed. Stand your ground protects that person jumping in and preventing that 1 person from possibly getting beaten to death from being arrested. As I said no law is perfect but you can't limit a persons ability to protect themselves or others from those who don't follow the laws.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowinglycreate a situation where TM felt threatened?

     

     

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     




     

    in my opinion, the law should take into account all the events leading up to the shooting. In evaluating a claim of self defense the jury should be able to consider whether the shooter did anything that may have been considered threatening or provocative and whether the shooter had ample opportunity to either avoid or retreat from the confrontation.  I also think the law, if it is going to allow people to carry deadly weapons in public, should demand the highest level of restraint from the carrier. Carrying a deadly weapon, if it is allowed, should be considered a grave responsibility and any irresponsibility in your actions while carrying a gun that leads to someone else's death by your gun should be treated as criminal negligence.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     



    Hmmm...is that the legal definition? It would seem by your summary that tm again had a chance to leave. He didn't. Why? 

    Please show me where the law supports your claim. I don't think an aggressor can be defined as someone who follows someone. If that was the case, thousands of people would have the right to kill everyday. The law, and the jury agree, is that the initial point of confrontation began with a punch initiated by tm. Simple. If you want to look at chain of events, why not go back to when they were born, or wht happened in the neighborhood in the months leading up to this. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    It's already been proven Martin out ran Zimmerman and was close to his house. Martin turned back and went after Zimmerman at that point. Martin has a share in the blame too. Just as much as Zimmerman getting out of his car is a mistake, Martin turning and fighting instead of properly assessing the situation and either talking or continuing to flee a man that he obviously could get away from was a way to avoid the confrontation too. You are completely correct that it depends on the circumstances and as I said if you are sure you can get away by fleeing, which in Martins case he could, you should or if you have the oppurtunity to flee you should. But fleeing instantly isn't always the right choice and sometimes is not possible at that moment. The stand your ground laws protects a person from moments in which fleeing adds danger to yourself or another individuals or is impossible at that moment. It's not meant to be a law that encourages you to charge towards danger.

     


    In some ways, this weighs against Zimmerman, since Martin ran away and only turned (assuming he turned--we only have Zimmerman's story) when Zimmerman continued to chase.  Martin may very well have been terrified by Zimmerman's persistant pursuit and unsure he could get away.  I know I'd be freaked out by some guy pursuing me this vigourously.  Oddly, you're arguing against fleeing on one side and saying it's better to stand one's ground, but condeming Martin for ceasing to flee and confronting his pursuer.  Zimmerman initiated the pursuit, however, and the contact so I see him as most responsible for what ensued.  Martin very legitimately could have been frightened and if we are to allow people to make judgments about whether or not to use force when scared, I don't see how we can say Martin had no right to punch, but Zimmerman was well in his rights to shoot Martin through the heart. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Just a few questions...

    So if I live in an area that has crime and the cops aren't stopping it, that I am suppose to stay in my house and do nothing? go outside with just my bare hands? Or do I let it become like Chicago?

    If I am describing some one I see in the neighborhood who is acting strange to me and I call 911 and they ask me to describe the person - I am not to say what color that person is?

    I can legally carry a gun but i am never supposed to use it?

    Maybe GZ  should have carried a TASER instead? maybe not?

    Do you realize that this neighborhood is mixed racially?

    Did you know that a very high % of Blacks have used the Stand Your Ground Defense?

    Does anyone ever think that GZ, thinking TM might be a criminal, that GZ just might think that the criminal might also have a gun? (something the prosecutors couldn't imagine)

    Has it been lost that GZ was not in his car when the 911 operator - asked GZ where the suspect was, then in a little bit told GZ it wasn't a good idea to follow and GZ said OK and stopped?

    Does any one think that GZ called 911, knew the cops were coming and then went out to kill the black? Really? or do you think like the prosecutors?

    The facts show that TM lost GZ thru the houses and 4 minutes after the last TM phone call that then TM and GZ met again?

    Does anyone seriously believe that TM couldn't run faster then GZ?

    Do you realize TM could have been home in a minute or less?

    Isn't it possible that Miss Jentile put the fear of a Gay Rapist in TM's head and that could be why TM beat the hell out of GZ?

    Did you know the prosecutors hid evidence - like data on TM's cell?

    Since we know that the cops can track cell phone movements , why don't we have that evidence? or is this more stuff that the procesutors have hidden?

    Did you know that GZ thru lawyers tried to convey their sorrow to the Martins in the very beginning and the TM lawyers refused to allow it?

    Aren't the Media, the race hustlers and the Pols responsible for this whole trial getting out of hand? Aren't they the only winners in this whole mess?

    When did we become mob rule? with the NAACP ,Sharpton, Jackson demanding a criminal charge with out probable cause ? - just like the 1st trial?

    Wouldn't that mean that every shooting between races would have to be tried by the FEDS? - or only when a black gets shot? as the Justice Department seems to do

    Did you know that the TM family has already received $1M from the Homeowners ASSoc?

    Who doesn't believe that this is and was a tragedy? Rhetorical question I hope

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to APpats21's comment:

     

    GZ wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty. That's because there were no witnesses so it boils down to a he said she said thing. Problem is, one of the sides is dead. That doesn't mean he's innocent, just that there isnt enough evidence to convict him. The prosecuters really messed up that one. They aimed too high.

    Anyways GZ isn't a stand out guy. Digging up his myspace shows he was a racist (http://theurbandaily.com/2514888/george-zimmermans-myspace-page-resurfaces-with-racist-and-criminal-comments/) and that he also has a violent background (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed). Either way you boil it down, the kid would still be alive if he listened to the dispatcher and didn't leave his car. He caused this. Would you be fine with an older man following you around when you were 17? I doubt it.

    I must say i'm disgusted by the people who are overjoyed that GZ is innocent (not you guys). Most of them are racially fueled and see it as one less black man on the streets. It really shows how disgusting people are. Im Puerto Rican and have faced racism my whole life and even though it is not against me or Hispanics, i hate to see another race put down by their skin color.

     

     


    Hey AP, ever heard of the phrase "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? This is not just a saying, this is a fact according to the law. GZ went into the trial, even after he admitted to shooting TM as "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY." Don't be confused by all of this BS, dialogue. GZ was charged with Murder and at that point the State is required to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that GZ is guilty. They didn't and the jury ruled "NOT GUILTY". The fact is, GZ WAS NEVER NOT INNOCENT. This means that "NOT GUILTY" only validates that GZ WAS ALWAYS INNOCENT in the COURT'S EYES. Not Guilty = YOU ARE INNOCENT, STILL. GZ was ruled "STILL INNOCENT" by the JURY. Make sense?

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowinglycreate a situation where TM felt threatened?

     

     

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     


    See Tin, the probelm with your proposition is that Prolate ONLY wants to speculate from the side of TM and ignore the existing facts despite the reality that Court and Jury declared that GZ IS STILL INNOCENT of the crime he was tried for (You know, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Never proven gulty so is deemed INNOCENT STILL) he wants to imply conspiracy, or something that has laready proven to be total BS. So, forget about him actually being able to look at what the JURY made their decision on. THERE IS NO SPECULATION ALLOWED ON THE GZ side of this arguement. But I guess there doesn't need to be since the facts proved GZ is STILL INNOCENT and carrying a gun today. Short sightedness is so unbelievable.........

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share