44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 10:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Following someone, without more,
is not a threat.

It seems odd that u believe that it IS.





David
hawkeye10 wrote:
Wow, just how out of touch are you? If an "unwelcomed advance" is considered threatening [considered by whom??] then surely unwelcomed following is. You rights have already been greatly restricted in America, threats to your ability to own and carry guns is just the tip of the iceberg of where your freedom is under threat.
There is no law against following anyone, so far as I have ever heard.
If u allege that there IS, then please exhibit it.
If a followed person decides to do so,
he can apply to a court of of law and equity
for an order against that individual 's following him.
Violation thereof, is a contempt of court.

If anyone else follows him, he must repeat the procedure,
ad infinitum, as against each person who stalks him.

I re-iterate that following anyone is not a threat.
If u allege that it IS a threat,
then please tell us exactly WHAT is being threatened?????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 10:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I don't think it is my reasoning that is in error David.
It's your attempt to redefine the circumstances of what can be perceived as a threat that defies reason.
I did not re-define anything.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 11:02 pm
@JTT,

DAVID wrote:
It appears that in the world of your nightmares,
where reason is twisted backward, that is true; sad, but harmless for the rest of us.
JTT wrote:


Really, Om?

1. Aren't you a twice convicted child molester?

2. Were you not disbarred for the previously mentioned activities?

Let me reply for you, using OmSig "logic".

To question 1. - "yes". As to question 2. - "yes".
YES. I agree that those things did not happen.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 12:00 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Persistently following somebody (as this fellow in Florida did, in his car) is generally considered stalking, David.
Yes. That is not the situation by which we r confronted in this case.
Mr. Z only followed him on the night in question.
Does anyone allege that he did it more persistently than that?????
Do U allege it???
It appears to have been only a few minutes; probably less than half an hour.






msolga wrote:
And he continued stalking after the police advised him to stop following the young man.
So WHAT???
Since when do the police have more jurisdiction than a shoe salesman
to stop anyone from following someone???
If u allege that thay HAD lawful jurisdiction for that
then please cite to the applicable law.




msolga wrote:
If he had followed police advice & simply allowed the police investigate his "complaint",
He did not prevent the police
from investigating anything, nor do thay complain that he did.




msolga wrote:
that unarmed young man, just walking back from a convenience store, would not have been killed.
We don't know the circumstances under which he was killed,
including, we do not know exactly whether he brought it on himself.



msolga wrote:
What is so "odd" to you about those circumstances?
What is ODD, is that Mr. Parados thinks that merely FOLLOWING someone is a threat.
That is a very paranoid allegation.




msolga wrote:
Zimmerman was behaving in a very threatening manner for absolutely no good reason.
O, REALLY???
Just exactly WHAT is it that u claim that Mr. Z was threatening to DO???





msolga wrote:
You are grasping at straws.
nonsense

Hanging upside down, like a bat,
as u do all the time down there
probably has a negative effect upon adequate mental oxygenation.





David
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 12:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That is not the situation by which we r confronted in this case.
Mr. Z only followed him on the night in question.

OK, he persisted in following him on "the night in question", despite being asked by the police to desist.

Rolling Eyes
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 12:35 am
@msolga,
DAVID wrote:
That is not the situation by which we r confronted in this case.
Mr. Z only followed him on the night in question.
msolga wrote:
OK, he persisted in following him on "the night in question",
despite being asked by the police to desist.
I think that we ALL know that.
I have pointed out that thay have no jurisdiction to do that,
so far as anyone alleges. AGAIN, I challenge u that if u can show
that the police DID have jurisdiction for stopping him from following decedent
on that nite, then please cite to the law that awards them that authority.

I 'm pretty sure that if he wanted to stop someone from following him,
he 'd need to sue for an injunction.


I was hoping that u 'd like my bat joke.





David
msolga
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 01:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
They advised him to stop & leave it to them, David.
And because he didn't a young man is now dead.
Those are the facts of the situation.
Whether the police had any jurisdiction to advise him to desist or not , I have no idea.
I wasn't arguing that they did.


What happened was a self-appointed "watchman" was cruising the streets of a gated community in his car with a gun, looking for people who might be "suspicious". He sees a young black man wearing a hoodie & notifies the police. (who apparently were used to him doing this sort of "surveillance" & reporting back to them.) They advise him to leave & that they would follow up. He doesn't & continues to stalk the young man. Apparently he then gets out of his car & approaches the young man .... a scuffle breaks out & the young man shot & killed.

I don't know nearly enough about Florida/US laws to confidently assert which laws he might or might not have broken .... but from what I understand about the published details of this incident, his actions certainly CAUSED that unarmed young man's death.
WHATEVER the laws in Florida, Zimmerman was a dangerous menace on the streets.

Why you persist in splitting hairs in attempting to find loopholes in the laws to defend him, beats me. His actions were responsible for the death of an innocent person. Why are you not a lot more concerned about that? Does your obsession with gun ownership override everything else?

OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 02:59 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
They advised him to stop & leave it to them, David.
And because he didn't a young man is now dead.
Those are the facts of the situation.
U bend over backward to assume and insist
that decedent was the most pristine essence of innocence.
U have no evidence that he did not become violent with Mr. Z
with little or no provocation.
I 'm pretty sure that if I had been in decedent's situation,
there 'd have been no fight, because I 'd have had a civilized converstion.
It 'd go something like this:
Z: "Excuse me, Sir. Can I ask u what u r doing in the naborhood?"
ME: "Who the hell r u ??"
Z: "I 'm with the naborhood watch"
ME: "OK. I 'm a guest in that house over there."
Possibly, he might want to confirm over there,
but there 'd be no violence and neither of us
woud have any reason to draw out our guns.




msolga wrote:
Whether the police had any jurisdiction to advise him to desist or not, I have no idea.
I wasn't arguing that they did.
U made your post SOUND LIKE
u had in mind that we shud all DO
whatever the police get it into their heads to tell us to DO.



msolga wrote:
What happened was a self-appointed "watchman" was cruising the streets
of a gated community in his car with a gun, looking for people who might be "suspicious".
That, in itself, is not necessarily bad.
It might have a good effect in suppressing burglaries.




msolga wrote:
He sees a young black man wearing a hoodie & notifies the police. (who apparently were used to him doing this sort of "surveillance" & reporting back to them.) They advise him to leave & that they would follow up. He doesn't & continues to stalk the young man. Apparently he then gets out of his car & approaches the young man .... a scuffle breaks out & the young man shot & killed.
Note, incidentally, that the same thing can happen
to salaried police, including police of decedent's race.
That woud not be the first time in history.





msolga wrote:
I don't know nearly enough about Florida/US laws to confidently assert which laws he might or might not have broken .... but from what I understand about the published details of this incident, his actions certainly CAUSED that unarmed young man's death.
If Trayvon had been placid & inoffensive,
he 'd almost certainly still remain intact
.
Unless Z is wildly crazy (which, from his holding a job and calmly
speaking to police on the tape, appears not to be the case), he 'd
not decide to gratuitously assassinate a total stranger,
when he knows that the police will arrive momentarily
and find him with a bloody corpse in front of him.






msolga wrote:
WHATEVER the laws in Florida, Zimmerman was a dangerous menace on the streets.
U know this because of his life-long history
of personal violence, in addition to this incident, right???????
My sense of the situation is that if I had been standing next to him,
I 'd have been completely safe.






msolga wrote:
Why you persist in splitting hairs in attempting to find loopholes in the laws to defend him, beats me.
His actions were responsible for the death of an innocent person.
Probably not as innocent as u think.
From my observation of inter-personal dynamics
over a goodly number of decades, I 'm fairly confident that this
was not unilateral, as u try to suggest.






msolga wrote:
Why are you not a lot more concerned about that?
Does your obsession with gun ownership override everything else?
Yes. Nothing is more fundamental
than the right to self defense; it is existential.
"The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms:
the sword and sovereignty ever walk hand in hand" Aristotle





David
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 03:03 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Neutral

I'll leave it here, David. I think I've had enough for now.
If anyone else wishes to respond to that, you are more than welcome to! Wink
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 03:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David, the man's a racist, he used Florida's law to murder someone. If I were black and living in Florida I would feel threatened by the very existence of the racist hotbed that is that gated community. I would not feel safe until that place were raised to the ground. If you're feeling threatened aren't you allowed to use deadly force? That place should be shelled. Can you buy heavy artillery in Florida? If you can, the black community needs it, so no more of their children are killed.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 03:42 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
DAvids world consists of everyone armed and ready with open warfare among us.
I just wanna restore the status quo ante. That means put it back the way it was
before the foul advent of "gun control."
Note that since Alaska rejected gun control about maybe ten years ago,
the streets did not run red with blood. The crime rate DROPPED.
It was and is peaceful.
In Vermont, since and before it became a State in 1791, thay had
very little crime and no anti-gun laws and none of the warfare
that our farmer insists upon.





farmerman wrote:
DAve is a Libertarian, and libertarians are never accused of being sane.
Its sad & strange that this is attributed to those who resent n resist authoritarianism
and advocate freedom.





David
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 04:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its sad & strange that this is attributed to those who resent n resist authoritarianism
and advocate freedom
Bullshit, you are none of these, you are a selfish old man who favors anarchy.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 04:25 am
@farmerman,
Both Vermont and Alaska are quite rural states. The gun crime rate may be lower due more to edaphic factors than some factor inherent within thier gun laws. Would a "no license needed to carry "=law work in Maryland or California?.
AS a note, I looked up the homicide rates (Just that portion of un crime stats) for the period 1980 till 1999 and there are times that ALaska exceeds the national homicide rate. In FAirbanks and Anchorage the homicide rates are ctually higher than national stat rates of "homicides per thousand of population" So no great truths about gund v crime can be deduced from their reported numbers. In fact, the murder rates , historically, for ceratin population centers in ALaska are HIGHER than national averages
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 04:58 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
David, the man's a racist,
Possibly that may influence him at election time,
but did that convince him to commit murder, for NO reason,
when he KNOWS for a FACT that he police will arrive
within a few seconds or a few minutes, will he choose
to embarrass himself in front of them,
by having a bloody corpse in front of him??
Additionally, he coud not know whether (with a feeble, little 9mm Luger round) the wounds 'd be fatal.
His opponent very well might survive and tell all kinds of lies about him. He surely knew that.
Guys have survived with 15 little 9mm rounds in them.
( I love my 9mm Luger from 194O, but I 'd not trust it for defensive use.)
Shooting someone can be risky. He knew that.
There is no potential for benefit for him.
What 'd be the point????



izzythepush wrote:
he used Florida's law to murder someone.
That 's implausible (in addition to the fact that the statute,
by its own language, does not apply to this situation).
He did not say to himself:
"the police r on their way. I know because I just called them.
Thay know that I 'm here with this individual, because I told them,
so I 'm gonna commit murder before thay get here in a minute or 2. Boy, will I have a surprize for them!
Geeeee! I wonder which lawyer I 'll choose to defend me from the family in the CIVIL case."



izzythepush wrote:
If I were black and living in Florida I would feel threatened by the very existence
of the racist hotbed that is that gated community. I would not feel safe until that place were raised to the ground.
Did u feel that way about pro-commie areas, before Christmas of 1991??






izzythepush wrote:
If you're feeling threatened aren't you allowed to use deadly force?
Yes; experiencing an emotion, by itself,
without more, does not grant u rights.





izzythepush wrote:
That place should be shelled. Can you buy heavy artillery in Florida?
If you can, the black community needs it, so no more of their children are killed.
There 'd be counter-battery warfare; noisy.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 05:05 am
@farmerman,
DAVID wrote:
Its sad & strange that this is attributed to those who resent n resist authoritarianism
and advocate freedom
farmerman wrote:
Bullshit, you are none of these, you are a selfish old man who favors anarchy.
Your assertion is false,
except insofar as it correctly attributes selfishness to me
and altho I favor anarchy, and I love it,
I cannot fully embrace it, because of its value in coining money
and co-ordinating wars and maybe a few other things.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 05:09 am
@farmerman,
If I remember, Alaska rejected gun control since 1999,
but I 'm not sure; maybe slightly b4 the turn of the century; not much.

Phoenix, Arizona is a major city.
Things seem OK, since its rejection of gun control
about maybe a year or 2 ago.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 05:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
We didn't have many pro-commie areas in the UK prior to 1991, and in any event they weren't patrolled by racist gunmen.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 05:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
did that convince him to commit murder, for NO reason,
when he KNOWS for a FACT that he police will arrive
within a few seconds or a few minutes, will he choose
to embarrass himself in front of them,
by having a bloody corpse in front of him??


That's what did happen, and thanks to the racist police force he wasn't even questioned.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 06:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Actually David, if you'd ever met any members of the British Communist Party you would find you had nothing to fear, unless hot air is a deadly weapon. A bunch of men with beards who like the sound of their own voices. Dull? Certainly. Frightening? No.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 07:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It is night. You are the only person on the sidewalk. The guy following you has a gun. He is following you in a car. He then gets out of the car and starts following you on foot. Someone as paranoid as you David would argue that is not a threat? I find that odd on your part.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 02:54:52