|
20 Jul 13 - 12:07 AM (#3539579) Subject: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Red Queen This is not a good law. Castle Law. In a public place, you have a duty to retreat if you can do so SAFELY. That's more than reasonable. That must become the law of the land. And any who oppose me will be beat down mercilessly with words. And Richard, I'm counting on you. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 12:14 AM (#3539581) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: LadyJean There are petitions out there from people who won't visit Florida until the law is repealed. Find one and sign it. The local fire chief showed up in my yard on Memorial Day. He didn't announce himself. He was inspecting my yard, apparently he does that. But I didn't know him. I'm a single lady. I suppose I could have shot him, if I had had a gun, instead of a set of clippers. (I was pruning my roses.) I'm happy I didn't. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 12:19 AM (#3539586) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Who is Richard? GfS |
|
20 Jul 13 - 01:32 AM (#3539598) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Lady Jean Law enforcement officers all over America are becoming more visible and more vocal in terms of what they need to do their jobs. Everyone must understand that police officers are inclined to do their jobs to the letter of the law. That's their job. Give them bad laws and they will be incompetent police officers. They hate their jobs because their jobs defy common sense. Ask one. Police officers should have as much discretion as possible. That's not police state. That's police officers using their best judgement as professionals that have the right to say, at the end of the day, I'm a good cop. I have done the best I could have done. Nobody knows what that is except a cop. So, are we going to micromanage them, subject them to laws that lead to vigilantism? Or are we going to trust them? We're better off if we do. Trayvon Martin taught me that. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 02:33 AM (#3539609) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Joe Offer Hi, Lady Jean - I have mixed feelings about your statement that police officers should have as much discretion as possible. I spent 30 years investigating police officers, and I found that a lot of them were lacking in discretion. There's a "cop mentality" that tends to be very legalistic, to the detriment of common sense. It tended to emphasize legalism over ethics - an attitude that said, "If it isn't illegal, it must be right." Yes, there were many that had very good judgment and that I felt completely comfortable with, but far too many had that "cop mentality." So, I think police officers need fairly strong oversight. But on the "Stand Your Ground" laws, I think they're a mistake. They encourage vigilantism. Even trained police officers need close supervision. Who's going to supervise the armed vigilantes? -Joe- |
|
20 Jul 13 - 03:34 AM (#3539625) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: MGM·Lion I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun-laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not |
|
20 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM (#3539641) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Eliza But Michael, nobody's asking you to contribute if you don't wish to. "Calm down dear, it's only Thread." (Aplologies to the late Michael Winner) |
|
20 Jul 13 - 05:46 AM (#3539642) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Eliza apologies, not aplologies! Arthur Itis strikes again! |
|
20 Jul 13 - 06:02 AM (#3539645) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: MGM·Lion No need to apologise to Michael W. He was a distant relative of mine, did you know? and we were at Cambridge together. And that is my way of calming down when they get going over there! ~M~ |
|
20 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM (#3539647) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SPB at work Is that why in US you have mailboxes by your front garden gate instread of letterboxes in your doors? ie if a postman(mailman) was to take the post to the door the householder has the legal right to kill him. Just in case.... |
|
20 Jul 13 - 06:15 AM (#3539650) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Eliza Gracious! All our posties have to worry about is nasty dogs! |
|
20 Jul 13 - 06:59 AM (#3539661) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,spb at work If the law applied in London, instead of a no junk mail sign I could put one up saying that "I reserve the right to use deadly force to protect myself from junk mail" |
|
20 Jul 13 - 08:49 AM (#3539684) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert Stand your ground laws have been pushed onto states by the NRA to sell more guns... And it's worked... Right after NewTown there was a picture in the "Charlotte Observer" of a local gun shop with a line of white males waiting outside the door to purchase guns... There was another picture that ran a couple days later of that same gun store this time showing the inside of the store... There was not one single gun left.... The NRA is very, very good at selling guns and very, very bad in making us safer... Their narrative that guns make us safer is like telling us that smoking cigarettes is good for us... They have the microphone and the $$$ to push lies down people's throats and that's what they are doing... The Center for Disease Control was in the midst of a study on the effects of gun violence and was close to making some of the preliminary finding public... The NRA got wind of it and used it clout to stop it... Do the math... B~ |
|
20 Jul 13 - 09:09 AM (#3539688) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter Like it or not, thirty or more states have stand-your-ground laws. So unless the Florida law is especially egregious (I don't know if it is), singling it out is unfair and, let's face it, media-driven. As I wrote elsewhere, the *theory* behind these laws (aside from encouraging gun sales) is that they deter violence by making an attacker think twice before using potentially deadly force. ) Like attackers think twice. (And the laws only apply if the force is potentially deadly. If you punch my nose, and I'm in no deadly danger, I'll still go to jail if I shoot you.) |
|
20 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM (#3539697) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. If you punch my nose, and I'm in no deadly danger, I'll still go to jail if I shoot you. Like Zimmerman went tyo jail, you mean? |
|
20 Jul 13 - 01:23 PM (#3539773) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter According to eyewitness Jon Good who was standing within twenty feet, Z's head was being "ground" and "pounded" into the concrete as he cried for help (for at least 45 seconds, as the 911 tapes proved: and no real help came). Nor did "innocent child" M desist when Good hollered at them and said he was calling the cops. M kept beating the smaller Z instead. Only one forensic pathologist testified - for the defense, interestingly enough: evidently the prosecution couldn't find one who'd disagree. He said that even one more blow to the head against the concrete could have killed Z or turned him into a vegetable, regardless of how much blood appeared on his scalp. I could go on - and on - but anyone who's really interested can find the testimony on YouTube and elsewhere. We watched all of it as it happened. Not just reasonable doubt, the confluence of actual *evidence* was in Z's favor. The jury delivered the only possible verdict. If evidence doesn't matter, why have a trial at all? |
|
20 Jul 13 - 01:38 PM (#3539778) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Rapparee I did not follow the Zimmerman trial and have my own opinion on the outcome, which I reserve to myself. As for "stand your ground" laws -- silly, bad laws. The best thing to do is not to get in such a situation in the first place and second best is to leave if you are. ONLY if you have NO OTHER option is force (not necessarily deadly force) justifiable. If you attack me and I have no where to retreat to, I have no right to kill you UNLESS you are going to kill me and the threat is real (e.g., you are coming at me with a knife); I can and would disable you by breaking a bone or whatever other step might be needed before I would kill you. For one thing it simplifies the paperwork in the cop shop. Many homes in the US have "mail slots" -- we had one in Indiana. You have no more right to harm the mailman than you do to harm anyone else. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 01:47 PM (#3539780) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Q (Frank Staplin) Digression- Amazing how many people, especially so-called liberals, invent their own scenario in any white vs. black encounter, and disregard the evidence. Not guilty was the only possible verdict in the Zimmerman trial, given the evidence (Lighter, above). Digression because "Stand your ground" was not invoked in the trial. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 03:00 PM (#3539801) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: JohnInKansas Quite obviously hardly anyone who has posted thus far has any knowledge of what the "Castle Doctrine" or a "Stand Your Ground" law is or means. It also is obvious that nobody here is aware that the Florida Stand Your Ground Law had NOTHING TO DO WITH the trial of Zimmerman. The Castle Doctrine originated in European law, and essentially said that every citizen in his own home is entitled to the same privacy and security as the prince in his castle. "A Man's Home Is His Castle." This principle is recognized in FOUR separate Clauses of the US Constitution, and in several US State Constitutions. In several places, the Castle Doctrine was extended to make "defense of the home" a defense if force was used against an intruder. The BASIC reason for the original extensions was because several civil cases in which an intruder, injured by a homeowner during an unlawful intrusion, successfully sued the homeowners for their injuries. Notorious cases in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia are commonly cited by legal historians. Some of the extensions to the Castle Doctrine included "equal force" limitations, making it clear that one could use "deadly force" only to repel a "deadly threat," or ball bat against brick, etc. Others were less clear, but all that I've looked at include "appropriate force" terminology. When the "ban them all" tribe managed to bring new Federal Laws into effect, it was necessary to produce clear regulations that essentially provided a "recipe book" for getting a "concealed carry" permit. Each state was required to produce their own laws regarding "concealed carry" but there were Federal standards intended to provide some uniformity. "Accessory provisions" such as the prohibition against buying ammunition outside one's own state, or having a gun repaired by a gunsmith "next door across the state line" forced many legitimate gun users who would not previously have considered "concealed carry" useful to get licensed. In addition, many who would not have even considered having a gun decided to get one "to prove they could." Given that lots of people who otherwise wouldn't were now carrying concealed weapons, it was necessary to clarify how and where they could use them. While many of the "Stand Your Ground" laws previously said you can stand your ground at your front door, some but not all of the state statutes now permit you to "stand" anywhere you are legally permitted to be (with or without your gun). Regardless of the specific language of an individual law, in order to invoke "immunity" under a Stand Your Ground law, it is generally necessary to show both that: 1. A reasonable person would have percieved an aggressor to be a real threat. 2. That the person invoking immunity did, in fact, perceive the aggressor to be a real threat. This pretty much mandates that the person claiming immunity under a Stand Your Ground provision must take the stand at trial to permit examination of his/her "state of mind." Only an attorney who was a complete IDIOT would have permitted Zimmerman to claim that immunity, based on his prior fantastic and conflicting statments alone. At the instant when Martin walked in a direction away from Zimmerman, any claim of "immediate threat" was gone. When Zimmerman left his vehicle and followed Martin, Zimmerman became the aggressor (stalker) and any reasonable (black) person in a strange (white) neighborhood would be justified in perceiving a threat. (It's unfortunate that the "black" and "white" have any bearing, and it's difficult to say how much effect they had.) Martin would have been justified in claiming applicability of the Stand Your Ground statute, had he actually injured Zimmerman; but he was unfortunately unable to take the stand, so there was NO APPLICATION OF OR REFERENCE TO THAT STATUTE AT ANY TIME IN THE TRIAL. As presented to the jury, the case was "two guys got into a fight and one of them is dead." The prosecuter did not even introduce "... because the other guy had a gun." PERIOD. John |
|
20 Jul 13 - 03:49 PM (#3539812) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. M kept beating the smaller Z instead. Got that backwards, amigo. But have fun..... |
|
20 Jul 13 - 04:49 PM (#3539821) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter > so-called liberals I've been a real liberal for as long as I can remember. As I've said elsewhere, "so-called liberals" are starry-eyed, New Age populists (Don't confuse them with facts!), and "so-called conservatives" are reactionary populists (Don't confuse them with history!). While, as John says, the stand-your-ground statute was *not* invoked by anybody in the Z trial, the broader self-defense statute in Florida seems to include the phrase "while standing one's ground" to allow for use of the statute when applicable. Thus many people who should know better are claiming that the the SYG law itself was in play. It wasn't. And now for some more venting. (Sorry.) The evidence at trial showed that Z made *no* "fantastic" statements to police. Both detectives testified that his minor inconsistencies suggested sincerity rather than a made-up story. When Detective Cerino tried to bluff Z that what *really* happened had all been recorded on one of the security cameras that Z knew were in the area, Z said "Thank God!" or words to that effect. Unfortunately the camera that *should* have taped it was scheduled for repair. Murphy's Law. Recall that the story was news because the Sanford DA said he had no case to prosecute. That marked him, and the Chief of Police who had to resign, as presumptive "racists." (The claim that Z had "not even been arrested" was only technically true: he was taken into custody on the scene and released only after several hours of grilling, but without being booked for a crime. If it had happened to you or me, I think we'd consider it "being arrested.") Then SYG was injected. And get this, also BTW. After the verdict, I watched the Florida State's Attorney, who'd prosecuted without even bringing the case to a Grand Jury as is usually required, being asked on Headline News if she could describe Z with one word. She pondered for a long time. Then she said (with a creepy smile): "Murderer." Not "killer," mind you, which at least would be literally true. "Murderer." Never mind the legal acquittal. The case pisses me off because it was hyped from the start with the implied accusation of Klan-like racism against the Sanford police and DA. (And the falsehood that Z had called T a "coon.") In spite of a trial, with a jury chosen by both sides, it's now claimed that the jury too was racist; that the prosecution "botched the case"; that Z was a racist "profiler" and a "cop wanna-be" (the police call shows that T's possibly odd behavior in the rain aroused Z's concern, not his race or his "hoodie"); that T was an "innocent child;" that the "cards were stacked in Z's favor from the beginning" (according to Jesse Jackson) and that the trial was a "miscarriage of justice." Jackson also noted that Z "was not tried by a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers." The implication that an all-black jury would or could not have evaluated the evidence logically (and the secondary implication that that's a good thing!) should make everybody sick. Would "another jury" have convicted Z? Maybe, maybe not. But so what? That's true of every case that's ever been tried. And what are the odds that a *fair* jury would have convicted on this evidence? Now T is being ranked as a "martyr" with 14-yr.-old Emmett Till (tracked down and murdered in 1955 for whistling in the direction of a white woman) and Medgar Evers (WWII veteran and Civil Rights leader gunned down while working to end segregation at Ole Miss). Sickening. But not quite unbelievable. |
|
20 Jul 13 - 07:10 PM (#3539864) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: JohnInKansas An application of Kansas' Stand Your Ground Statute: My little village of course has a Municipal Code. The Code claims numerous "privileges" that are clearly illegal and unenforceable. Unfortunately, the current "Code Enforcers" were all trained by "Dennis" who was a supervisor in that department for ten years, and have been taught that "punishing people is FUN." The result is that they consistently and deliberately misinterpret the existing code, make claims of "Code violations" that do not exist, and claim the right "at any time and for any purpose" to enter any private property. The US Constitution, the Kansas Constitution, Kansas Statutes, and County Codes and Ordinances make it quite clear that NO ENTRY IN OR ONTO A PRIVATE PROPERTY IS LAWFUL EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY HOLDER. Any other entry requires a warrant or court order, and municipalities and/or municipal courts are SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED from issuing any such warrant or order in both State and County Statutes. After each of three fraudulent claims of "violations" that do not appear in the Code I visited the city office to try to find out what I could do to cooperate with what the city expected. At each visit the same two "officers" assumed what they considered an "intimidating stance," repeated multiple vague threats, refused to permit ANY QUESTIONS, and concluded with "We can find lots of things to charge you with" and then grinned (and almost giggled) at each other. In the third instance of fraudulent claims and threats, they surreptitiously invaded my yard, causing not less than $1,000 in damage to the existing lawn (according to the lawn care company I consulted), did NOTHING to remedy the "violation" they falsely claimed had existed, and made ruts in the lawn that broke a wheel bearing on my mower the next time I mowed properly. Then they sent me a bill for their "services." The invasion of the property was a Criminal Trespass (Class C Misdemeaner, 30 days in jail and up to $500 fine) and the "demand for payment," having no lawful basis was in fact a Criminal Extortion (Class B Felony). Just like your average street gang protection racket. While the Kansas "SYG" statute wouldn't (I assume) allow me to shoot them the next time they make a similar criminal invasion, it does permit me lawfully to say "GET THE F**K OUT OF MY YARD." (Given their past record of abuses, they'd probably beat the crap out of me, but I'd be on firm legal standing.) An interesting history of their teacher, Dennis, and of some of his little personality quirks that he passed on to the current city agents, is at Wikipedia. Or just search for "BTK." The city doesn't appear to think there's anything wrong. John |
|
20 Jul 13 - 07:36 PM (#3539867) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert The difference between "castle law" and the way that "stand your ground" laws is simple... Castle laws say you can protect your home... Stand your ground laws, as they are being used, means you can stalk someone with a gun and murder them and get away with it saying you felt threatened... Big difference... B~ |
|
20 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM (#3539872) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. Sickening. But not quite unbelievable. What's really sickening is that certain folks see no connection. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 01:45 AM (#3539899) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Joe Offer Wikipedia gives a pretty good explanation of "Stand Your Ground" laws: A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. The trouble is, many people think the laws are much broader, and I think the impression is that people are justified in using any sort of defense if they have reason to believe the other person presents a threat to them. I think that the perception people have of a law, is just as important as the actuality of it. People are going to obey their perception - the facts have little bearing on how they conduct themselves. -Joe- |
|
21 Jul 13 - 02:27 AM (#3539903) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Red Queen Richard who? Maybe you should read more and talk less... You're absolutely right Joe. I was being much too generous. Looking through the rose coloreds. Like I said before, Lincoln should have let them go. I have never been fond of the corporation. Decentralization of power is the lesson I took from my studies. Eliza, my boy is a complete marshmallow. Golden Retriever. He puts up a powerful bark. If he thought he had to, he would die in the line of duty. Funny thing, he only has instinct to protect me. When the master comes home, the master is the protector. Teddy is our second dog. Our first dog was a chocolate lab, our little girl Annie. No, that's a lie. Our first dog was a Husky named Blue. Enough said. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM (#3539985) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST 'And any who oppose me will be beat down mercilessly with words.' Good Christ. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM (#3539991) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST Very, very good as a matter of fact. Have you seen him? |
|
21 Jul 13 - 10:53 AM (#3539995) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: olddude John two words "Louisville slugger" let em chew on that for awhile |
|
21 Jul 13 - 11:07 AM (#3539998) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST olddude, of course you know I was kidding when I said, "beat down mercilessly with words." I see people put down around here regularly. It used to bother me. Now it just makes me laugh. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 12:22 PM (#3540020) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Uncle_DaveO I wrote approximately what is contained in the first four paragraphs below yesterday, and posted it. That post has disappeared, and I hope not because of censorship. I have here enlarged upon my original short post. First let me assure you that I am not a member or sympathizer of NRA. Likewise, I do not own a firearm of any kind. I am not a Tea-Bagger. I have no intent to change any of those statuses. But here's where I make myself unpopular, I expect: I am firmly of the opinion that every person has the natural right to protect him/herself and his immediate family from an attack, even to the extent of lethal force if he reasonably believes the attack will or is likely to cause death to himself or family. Note the word "reasonably". If the person can escape the attack under the pending circumstances, it is incumbent on him to do so. If escape is or reasonably seems impossible, then the application of nonlethal force is justified, if not required. If the person reasonably believes that his use of nonlethal force is either impossible or doomed to failure, then the use of lethal means is justified. "But," some might say, "who is to decide what is reasonable?" The answer is that that is what we have prosecutors and grand juries and judges and trial juries for. Prosecutors have discretion to bring criminal charges (or not), again based on a judgment of what was reasonable at the time of the incident. If the prosecutor decides that the defendant's judgments and actions were not reasonable, he submits it to a grand jury, who exercise judgment in whether to indict or not. If the grand jury does indict, then a judge and probably a trial jury need to find whether the prosecutor has established every one of the essential elements of the charged crime(s) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If the defendant has raised self-defense (Stand Your Ground) as a legal defense, that may, if the facts presented at trial support its reasonability, defeat one or more of the essential elements of the crime charged, in which case the defendant stands acquitted of that particular charged crime. If there is an acquittal, note that no jury (at least in the United States) finds that "THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT;" they find that "THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY", which is a different matter from innocence. A verdict of not guilty is merely a finding that the prosecutor failed to PROVE one or more of the essential elements of the specific charge. Turning to the Zimmerman case, it's my best estimate that the trial jury merely found that the prosecutor's admittedly weak case did not PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element charged. Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 Jul 13 - 03:20 PM (#3540085) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. So, Martin's problem was that he should have had a firearm also, and when he reasonably believed his life threatened by Zimmerman, he should have just blown him away FIRST. And we're right back to Dodge City. Or some other Hobbesian dystopia. But ain't that America, somethin' to see..... |
|
21 Jul 13 - 03:34 PM (#3540088) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter If one dude packs a rod, all dudes must pack rods. That's why they're called "equalizers." Now make me President of the NRA! |
|
21 Jul 13 - 03:54 PM (#3540090) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. Or send ya to the loonie bin. Hey- wehat about Dudettes??? |
|
21 Jul 13 - 04:36 PM (#3540097) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Red Queen Joe, maybe because I grew up watching westerns but I believe that no one should shoot an unarmed man. I think George Zimmerman is a two bit coward who would not have behaved the way he did without that gun. Coward. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 12:27 AM (#3540178) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Joe Offer Red Queen, I grew up watching westerns, too - and I believe the same thing you do. -Joe- |
|
22 Jul 13 - 06:41 AM (#3540220) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Red Queen Yup. And so does Senator McCain. I had a funny feeling we could count on him. I was thinking of writing him. As it turns out, I didn't need to. He was already on the job. Good news on a Monday morning. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 08:12 AM (#3540228) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter Get your head beaten on concrete for 45 seconds while no help comes and you'll be in a better position to call names. Or just think about it intently as you watch 45 seconds pass on a clock. Not to mention that Zimmerman claims that the "innocent child" Martin had found and was fumbling for the gun. Or is that plain impossible because Zimmerman said it? Who was more to blame, moralists? A man stepping from his car and walking a few yards or one who comes back, breaks that man's nose and beats him to the ground |
|
22 Jul 13 - 08:22 AM (#3540232) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter And by the way, if you happened to be instead the guy who was doing the pounding and grinding of another man's head, would you have kept on doing it indefinitely even after somebody stood less than twenty feet away and yelled he was calling the cops? Or would you, as Martin might have done, jumped up and run like hell? But you could have done that after knocking the guy down in the first place, couldn't you? Couldn't you? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 09:32 AM (#3540245) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Stu ""But," some might say, "who is to decide what is reasonable?" The answer is that that is what we have prosecutors and grand juries and judges and trial juries for." No you don't. Society as a whole decides what's reasonable or not, and simply suggesting the judicial system decides what is and isn't stinks of the avoidance of personal responsibility on behalf of gun-owners and others who carry weapons. By the time a case gets to court someone might well be dead already, so the 'what is reasonable' decision has been made by the perpetrator, and the court's role is to arbitrate and apply the letter of the law. So if you carry a gun, you will be responsible for deciding what reasonable force is, and base your actions on that decision. If you don't know the law, haven't thought about it or don't care then you shouldn't have a weapon. Of course, who can tell though? "Joe, maybe because I grew up watching westerns but I believe that no one should shoot an unarmed man." Oh blood and sand, is this sort of thing your moral reference? Hollywood films? Irony, right? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 10:11 AM (#3540261) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. You can assume, presume, pretend, and guess at any possibilities you want, Lighter - even if it strains credibility, rationality and common sense and three hundred years of history and past practice. It this a great country or what? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 12:50 PM (#3540343) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Q (Frank Staplin) "Three hundred years of history..." This suggestion that the six women of the jury made their determination solely on prejudice is deplorable. The evidence of the trial could lead only to acquittal. Your imaginary scenario bears no relation to the evidence. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 01:11 PM (#3540351) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter As for the jury, the three prosecutors were quite satisfied with the jurors' ability to judge fairly when they accepted each of them after pointed questioning. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 01:12 PM (#3540354) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. Q, get real - there was no statement or suggestion that it was made "SOLELY" on that basis. But the idea that it had nothing to do with the verdict is delusional. Ever live in the deep South & for how long? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 02:05 PM (#3540399) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL John in Kansas. The juror who spoke out said that Stand Your Ground informed their decision. So basically, it was Stand Your Ground. And btw, that juror was so colossally ignorant. Good Christ! If she had a brain in her head she'd be lonesome, as my dad used to say. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 02:38 PM (#3540419) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Q (Frank Staplin) None of your business, GF, but I have relatives in central Georgia and have resided in both GA and TX and worked for a time in the latter. There is no point in answering to your prejudices. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 02:44 PM (#3540424) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert Danged... Why didn't Lighter take the stand since he seems to be the only person on the planet who knew that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the concrete??? But never mind that... Here's the real deal... Had Martin had been on top and in a position to pound his head into the concrete - which is very doubtful seein' as it was Zimmerman who supposedly knew mixed martial arts - then guess what, people... There would have been a lot more damage to Zimmerman than what we saw in the photos... Plus, one of the two witnesses who says he kinda saw the fight said that Martin was raining down punches on Zimmerman... Lighter - who was not there and is clueless as to what really happened - and Zimmerman say that the head was getting pounded into the concrete... Hmmmmmm??? Which was it??? Head pounding from the front or back??? Geeeeee??? Someone is dead wrong here on the defense side... Please explain, Lighter, how I can rain down MMA punches while pounding your head into the concrete... This is a bullshit case tried in the South... I'm sure Lighter and his KKK buddies are tickled to have their boy beat the wrap... Me??? I'd love to see Zimmerman do time for anything and have a big black guy as a cell mate... That would be justice... B~ |
|
22 Jul 13 - 04:47 PM (#3540489) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Gibb Sahib Every time someone uses the word "KKK", somewhere a little puppy dies. Bobert, I'd love to see Zimmerman do time for anything and have a big black guy as a cell mate... That would be justice... Come now. For "anything"? Be serious a second. 1) What crime, specifically, do you believe Zimmerman committed? (Not a rhetorical question.) 2) In what way would the above scenario be justice served for that crime? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 06:11 PM (#3540525) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter Dang, Bobert, I listened to the testimony as it was given - just like the jurors. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 06:42 PM (#3540535) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. There is no point in answering to your prejudices. Or you realize that you're wrong in saying that history doesn't exist and/or doesn't matter, and is not still very much with us?? What's next? You going to tell us that "Some of your best friends are Negroes"? I think that one was a favorite of George Wallace and "Bull" Comnnor. Anyway, take it up with Bobert, why dontcha. Shame Azizi isn't still here, too; she'd be impressed with your point of view. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 07:30 PM (#3540557) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert What, Lighter??? You say you listened to the testimony??? So what did Martin supposedly do??? Rain MMA blows down on Zimmerman of pound his head into the concrete??? You can't pick both 'cause martial arts don't work that way... I mean, you can do one but you can't do both... So please, Lighter, just answer the question since you seem to think you know exactly what happened... B~ |
|
23 Jul 13 - 01:40 AM (#3540650) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Red Queen Bobert, I was listening to NPR earlier tonight and a prominent Albany law professor, Paul Finkelman, was interviewed about the case. He said that if the feds brought a case, they would win. I wish they would. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 09:21 AM (#3540762) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert I'd love to see them bring the case... I doubt if the language in federal law would allow for a conviction but I'd like to see Zimmerman have to squirm some more for what he has done... B~ |
|
23 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM (#3540766) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: kendall Stand your ground is one of the silliest laws ever. This morning I was in the center lane and the sign said "Right lane ends". Some jerk in the right lane goes tearing past. I could have forced him into the ditch but I chose not to. If you deliberately contribute to an accident, it is not an accident, and you are equally guilty. If you carry a gun and some thug demands your wallet at knife point you have the right under Stand your ground to shoot him. But, would you? An eye for an eye means just that, no more, and a life for a wallet breaks that rule. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM (#3540774) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert Oh, and how about all these states pushing for people to be able to not only stand their ground but carry guns into bars??? B~ |
|
23 Jul 13 - 10:41 AM (#3540780) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST QUOTE If you carry a gun and some thug demands your wallet at knife point you have the right under Stand your ground to shoot him. But, would you? An eye for an eye means just that, no more, and a life for a wallet breaks that rule. /QUOTE So you mean that "stand your ground" is about revenge (eye for an eye) not about self defence (where lethal force would be a proportionate defence against a lethal weapon)? To misquote Obelix "these Americans are crazy" |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:05 PM (#3540813) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter The SYG defense requires proportionality of force. It did not apply to Z because, pinned to the ground for with his head being thumped on the pavement for nearly a minute, he "reasonably believed" he was in danger of death or great bodily harm and was physically unable to retreat. That would be true *whether or not* M found the gun (the DNA samples were inconclusive) and/or told Z, "You're gonna die tonight, m--f--" (for which we have only Z's word). |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:15 PM (#3540821) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. was physically unable to retreat. He shouldn't have stalked Martin & should have retreated like the police told him to do in the first instance then, eh? Zimmerman put himself in harms way - not that the harm amounted to much. I've been savaged worse by a pet Guinea Pig. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 04:28 PM (#3540931) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL Savaged worse by a guinea pig? Sounds about right. Is it me or does it seem like the only force that is considered justifiable in Stand Your Ground states involves a gun? It's not okay to punch someone in self-defense, only shoot them? First he stalked him from his vehicle, then pursued him on foot and I believe ultimately accosted him. Then when the "suspect" asserted his right to defend himself, he killed him. Once he got close enough to the boy to provoke a confrontation, the kid had a right. A perfect stranger like that? Why do people go on as though this kid had no rights of his own? No right to be in the neighborhood where he was staying. No right to walk home from the store. No right to get defensive when stalked. C'mon, where's the sense of fairness? In the first 911 call, couldn't you just hear the disappointment in Zimmerman's voice when told not to follow? After that, you could hear his impatience with the dispatcher who was asking for more info. He wanted to get off the phone and get back to it. Remember he wanted the police to call him when they arrived because he wasn't sure where he would be? In the end, his tale of being attacked is just not credible. George Zimmerman once pursued a pickup truck for nearly 5 minutes (out of his way) when he observed that there were kids in the car with no car seats. Can you imagine? What happened to getting a plate number? I seriously think he thought of the police as HIS backup. Stand Your Ground is a bad law but maybe it's not really my business to worry about because I live in New York? Maybe it's up to people who live in the states that have it to decide? Or maybe it should be made into a federal case? I really think it could be interpreted as unconstitutional myself. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:00 PM (#3540994) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert A guy in Florida heard something out front of his house and looked and saw someone "messin' with my truck"... So the guy grabbed a machete and went out, confronted the guy, the guy took off running and the guy chased him down and chopped him to death with the machete... Florida courts said, "Okay, good work"... B~ |
|
23 Jul 13 - 09:52 PM (#3541015) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: kendall Deadly force is only justified if you are in immediate peril. Guest, I'm sorry you didn't understand my post. Maybe it wasn't a good analogy. If someone breaks into my house and I catch him removing my tv set, I would NOT take his life. That's what an eye for an eye means. Check with any Rabbi. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM (#3542038) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: gnu "...then pursued him on foot and I believe ultimately accosted him. Then when the "suspect" asserted his right to defend himself, he killed him. Once he got close enough to the boy to provoke a confrontation, the kid had a right." I just searched again and I cannot fine the trial transcript. Can one of you, such as Guest,SJL, please provide a link to the trial transcript on accounta I really wanna read it. Thanks in advance. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 04:20 PM (#3542142) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Suzy Sock Puppet Well gnu, this is the best I could do. I don't think there is a full transcript available online. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin- But I believe this girl's testimony, that Zimmerman kept up pursuit, unafraid of a confrontation because he had that gun, and accosted Trayvon Martin. I don't believe he ambushed George Zimmerman as he was attempting to retreat to his truck. Don't forget to read the comments. They are so hate filled, it literally turned my stomache. What did this poor girl do to deserve all that hate (from both sides) except that she was on the phone with her friend at the time the incident occurred? She wasn't trying to be part of any of this. Here's more on Rachel Jeantel and her relationship with Trayvon Martin, that is if you are inclined to view the two of them as being human beings worthy of consideration: http://m.globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martin-few-people-who-didnt-tease-rachel-j |
|
26 Jul 13 - 05:00 PM (#3542157) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter > I believe this girl's testimony. She testified that M was headed home. But the phone records, distance to M's house, and the location of the fight add up to show she was wrong. I watched the trial. The media has emphasized these significant facts, and others, which were known to the jurors. The chatterers are focused on Jeantel, not on how what she said fit in with other evidence. She couldn't see in what direction M was headed, but if he was walking home fast he should have been there in about 45 seconds or less. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 05:41 PM (#3542169) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert Since you seem to know exactly what happened, Lighter, why weren't you asked to testify??? B~ |
|
26 Jul 13 - 06:21 PM (#3542181) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: gnu THANKS! I have been riveted to the first vid. Just had to take a pee break at one hour in and happened to read your comment "... that is if you are inclined to view the two of them as being human beings worthy of consideration:..." to which I repond, respectfully... WTF is YOUR problem? Don't cast aspersions on my character because I ask questions. I do not make judgements about you or anyone else. I find that remark disgusting and vile. Now, I am gonna go pee, watch the rest of the first vid and then watch the second link. I will watch and read every link. And I will watch the full trial and I will read the full trial transcript. At that point, I will make up my own mind about all of this. However, I must take offense to you making up your mind about me by posting such an accusation regarding my character. If that is the way you conduct yourself when asked for help... go fuck yourself. Don't take that the wrong way. I appreciate your help in understanding what happened and I thank you for it. But, character assassination for no reason is assassination of YOUR character and not mine. Feel free to apoligize if you have any character. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 07:12 PM (#3542200) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: gnu Watched it. 1:15h. It's not the trial. It's part of the discovery. Anyone can watch it and make up their own minds. I encourage everyone to do so. I am gonna watch the second link as time permits. I'll only say this before I say gnightgnu. Don't make up my mind in your mind. That simply makes your mind the mind of a bully no matter your opinion. Take note... I have not offered an opinion except to call those who would judge before reading the full trial transcript nothing more than a lynch mob. That is the only solid argument put forth yet. I do not know who is guilty and who is innocent yet, other than hearing the verdict of the jury, because I haven't read the full trial transcript. And neither does anyone else who wasn't at the trial or who has not read the full transcript. If Z SHOULD be hung, I'll find a suitable tree and I'll supply the rope... few of you would be up to the task given the fact that few of you are up to the task of seeing justice properly done in a court of law. Shame on you! Please PM me if any of you find the TRIAL transcript. Thanks in advance. gnightgnu |
|
26 Jul 13 - 09:24 PM (#3542229) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Greg F. ????? |
|
26 Jul 13 - 11:00 PM (#3542256) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL You know, I think I meant the vous you and not the you you, but I agree, it was a very thoughtless remark. So I am sorry. Man! You can bitch up a blue streak. Thank you for responding to my dumb ass thread about Snowden. Lighter, don't be mesmerized by the CSI effect. If Albert Einstein himself were here, he would tell you, there are things we can never know. He would be the first one to explain that there is science, and on the other hand, free will. And he would tell you that George Zimmerman should be locked up because he is mashugge. Bobert, rock on. You know, I listened to this interview a week ago with one of the foremost experts on American law, Paul Finkelman. He says the federal case could be very strong and won, with multiple charges against Mr. Zimmerman. He spoke if it very optimistically and hopefully. Maybe. We'll see. George Zimmerman is a sociopath. With an acquittal, he's riding high. He could fuck up on his own. We'll see about that too. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 11:06 PM (#3542257) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL ???? Greg, you sarcastic son of a bitch! How the hell are you? Have a drink. |
|
27 Jul 13 - 08:26 AM (#3542337) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Lighter Of course I intended to write "the media has NOT emphasized." Miss Jeantel also claimed on the stand that she clearly recognized Mr. Martin's voice on the phone saying "Get off! Get off!" just before or after his phone was apparently dropped to the ground. (Miss Jeantel also testified that she could "hear wet grass.") When the defense played the tape of the deposition she made months closer to the incident, she was clearly saying then "That *could be* Trayvon." Miss Jeantel then denied that she'd uttered those words, saying "You didn't get that from me!" |
|
28 Jul 13 - 07:52 AM (#3542652) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL Lighter, her inconsistencies are nowhere near as egregious as Zimmerman's. |
|
28 Jul 13 - 05:46 PM (#3542873) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL Actually, this thread is not supposed to be about the Zimmerman case. We should go back to the thread with the million posts. Personally, I think there should be a limit of about 300 posts. If you look at a thread and it's 1000+, not many would want to read all of that in order to catch up. Then if people were not done talking about a given topic, they could just start a new thread with a similar name, a variation of some kind- and naturally they would be linked together. A hidden advantage to a thread limit is that the end of it would be kinda like an ebay auction. Almost fun. Who gets the last word? A new and different concept in this crowd. Stand Your Ground is a bad law because it promotes dishonorable terms of engagement such as were roundly rejected in the Old West for good reason. Because it allows cowards who go looking for trouble with a gun, and can't even withstand a bump on the nose, to shoot and kill an unarmed man. If you are pursuing an unarmed individual with a gun and you end up shooting him, you're automatically in the wrong, whether civilian or law enforcement. |
|
03 Aug 13 - 05:12 AM (#3545022) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Who? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvlTJrNJ5lA&sns=em |
|
04 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM (#3545371) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""(And the laws only apply if the force is potentially deadly. If you punch my nose, and I'm in no deadly danger, I'll still go to jail if I shoot you.)"" Zimmerman didn't! Maybe that's the difference between Florida and the other states. We'll just have to wait and see when somebody gets punched. Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 05:35 AM (#3545373) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""M kept beating the smaller Z instead."" In the interests of accuracy, Trayvon Martin weighed 156 lb, while the ""smaller Z"" came in at a tiny 204 lb (three and one half stone heavier). Just one of many holes in the case. Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 05:53 AM (#3545384) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""a cop wanna-be"" Seems a fair description of one who applies to join the police force, is turned down because of his violent past (attacking a woman and a police officer in separate incidents), and then joins neighbourhood watch, carrying a concealed firearm in contravention of neighbourhood watch policy, then, instead of watching from home and reporting, decides to patrol the streets looking for trouble. What would YOU call him Lighter? Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 06:12 AM (#3545389) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Not to mention that Zimmerman claims that the "innocent child" Martin had found and was fumbling for the gun. Or is that plain impossible because Zimmerman said it?"" "Zimmerman said this", "Zimmerman said that", "Zimmerman claimed", "Zimmerman stated". And it's all accepted as gospel, because the only person who could call him a liar is conveniently dead! Does nobody see the problem inherent in that, or the mindset engendered by it. Don't bother punching anybody who gets in your way! Shoot the bastard and claim he frightened you. Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 06:20 AM (#3545393) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Who was more to blame, moralists? A man stepping from his car and walking a few yards or one who comes back, breaks that man's nose and beats him to the ground"" Two things wrong with that scenario Lighter! 1. Z claimed he was ambushed by Martin on returning to his car, but the following morning the bush Martin was supposed to have jumped out from had miraculously disappeared. 2. Martin's mobile didn't support the ambush story, with Zimmerman accosting him with the words "What are you doing here". Not exactly what you would say as a man jumps out of a bush and attacks you. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.....FACT! Zimmerman lied.....FACT! Yet you believe everything he said.......Go figure! Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM (#3545399) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""1) What crime, specifically, do you believe Zimmerman committed? (Not a rhetorical question.)"" The jury are a red herring in this argument. They could have reached no other conclusion based on the evidence they were allowed to hear. The defence was allowed to poison the trial with that trumped up witholding nonsense. They were allowed to use Martin's past behaviour to paint him as an aggressive pot smoking thug! The prosecution were not allowed (or didn't bother) to bring up Zimmerman's violent nature. If Martin were alive to take the stand, he would have had a good case under "stand your ground". It is significant that the defence wouldn't put Zimmerman on the stand, as a proper cross examination would have demolished him. He is guilty at the very least, of manslaughter, but he will never reap the just reward for that, and there will never be justice for Trayvon Martin. Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 06:40 AM (#3545401) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Why do people go on as though this kid had no rights of his own? No right to be in the neighborhood where he was staying. No right to walk home from the store. No right to get defensive when stalked."" Because, SJL, he was a black kid walking through a gated community guarded by a violent vigilante! Don T. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 06:32 PM (#3545574) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL All very good posts Don. I agree totally. |
|
04 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM (#3545594) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert |
|
04 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM (#3545596) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert Opps... I was just reading Don's stuff and then it just went away and I had posted nothing... What SJL said, Don... There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman not only got away with murder but that there are folks out there, some of them here, who are happy about the entire story... B~ |
|
05 Aug 13 - 09:37 AM (#3545740) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL Well, you have to look at it this way- despite the verdict, it is a consciousness raising story that won't be forgotten anytime too soon. I think a lot of people came away from this with a bigger commitment to civil rights. |
|
05 Aug 13 - 05:08 PM (#3545879) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Unfortunately, none of them working for law enforcement in Sanford, Florida. Expect a lot more stories like "He attacked me and ran onto the end of my nightstick". "He walked into the door as we frog marched him out of the building". "He tripped over my foot and broke his jaw on a mail box". Or more simply "I thought he was going to beat me to death with that white stick,...so I shot him. It was God's will!" Don T. |
|
05 Aug 13 - 05:18 PM (#3545881) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,SJL I know. "We told him multiple times..." |
|
06 Aug 13 - 12:34 AM (#3545999) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: MGM·Lion Well, I mean, you know, your Gun Laws are altogether... Oh, let it go, Michael. What's the use! |
|
06 Aug 13 - 12:53 AM (#3546003) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Robot: "There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman not only got away with murder but that there are folks out there...." Yeah, and ...there's a herd of turtles on their way to your house...they have torches and muttering about 'Goin' to be an old time Southern lynchin'" GfS |
|
06 Aug 13 - 09:25 AM (#3546116) Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground From: Bobert You aren't even funny, GfinS... You are just another KKKer as far as I can see... B~ |