44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2012 07:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
A lawyer, really? It doesn't seem even remotely possible.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2012 08:05 pm
@jcboy,
I hope not, if only for ballistics reasons. That's an interesting question.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2012 11:52 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:
I wonder if this man still has his gun?
Presumably; he needs self defense as much as anyone ("equal protection of the laws").


jcboy wrote:
When a policeman shoots someone his gun is removed and he is placed on
administrative leave pending an investigation.
In EVERY jurisdiction in America???? R u sure?
Note that this fellow is not a public employee, on-the-job
at the time n place of the event.




jcboy wrote:
I hope this murderer isn't armed and at home ready to kill again.
I hope that every American citizen is always prepared with emergency equipment
to defend his life n property from the predatory violence of man or beast.

Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it. Your life may well depend on that.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2012 11:58 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Adds, I think this is true (maybe I'm naive) of the whole neighborhood watch program system, nationwide, that you don't take matters into your own hands.
I think this teen was considered by the shooter as being guilty of being black and walking; the shooter may have other issues. Maybe there's a gated community mindset/function that I don't know about personally.

I relate to this situation in that my niece has lived part of her life as one of the relatively few black children, then teen, now adult, in an ok but sort of iffy area quite like where my ex and I lived. Most people there know her and I don't think she'd be a target, but a guy like this gives me chills.

The repulsive thing, past the shooting itself, is that he wasn't held.
If the police believe that he acted in self defense,
then there was no crime in their vu,
and hence: no reason for him to be "held", Osso.
The police shud NOT go around HOLDING people whom thay deem innocent of crime.

If the police see U in public, Osso,
and if thay consider u to be INNOCENT, then shud thay HOLD U ????

I don 't think so.





David
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 05:54 am
There is another sordid aspect of this case (and I'm relieved to see you all discussing it - I had begun a scoldy, sort of "why aren't you supposedly involved citizens discussing Trayvon's death" post)...

And let me say this is as yet unsubstantiated - I heard it from one of the morning pundits...
I heard they not only didn't immediately find and inform the young man's next-of-kin; but that they let the body lay for 3 days in the police morgue before letting anyone know about it. If that's true, that means his parents were searching for 3 days before they even knew what kept Trayvon from coming home on Feb 26th. The police had Trayvon's cell phone, so finding contacts and family members would not have been a problem.

I think, if true, that this is direct commentary on how the lives of some people are simply not considered by some to be as human or as important.

And I must also say this...

I took David off of ignore to see what tack (I hoped against hope that I would see some shred of decency) he would take on this case. He affirmed once and for all that he is a reprehensible pustule of a person on whom reason is wasted.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 06:12 am
@snood,
If someone had shot an unarmed man in the UK they would be charged, and most likely convicted of murder. I don't understand how this can be seen as anything other than that.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 07:06 am
@izzythepush,
unarmed?

have you ever had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea thrown in your face Razz
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 07:06 am
@djjd62,
especially the sour Skittles,they have this sort of crystal acid like substance coating them
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 08:03 am
@snood,
Yep, Charles Blow wrote about this last week.... it was one day, not three, but the rest is right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html

Quote:
“He said, ‘Somebody shot Trayvon and killed him.’ And I was like, ‘Are you sure?’ ” Fulton [Trayvon's mom] continued in disbelief. “I said ‘How do you know that’s Trayvon?’ And he said because they showed him a picture.”

That was Feb. 27, one day after Trayvon was shot. The father thought that he was missing, according to the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, but the boy’s body had actually been taken to the medical examiner’s office and listed as a John Doe.

The father called the Missing Persons Unit. No luck. Then he called 911. The police asked the father to describe the boy, after which they sent officers to the house where the father was staying. There they showed him a picture of the boy with blood coming out of his mouth.


0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:20 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
If someone had shot an unarmed man in the UK they would be charged,
and most likely convicted of murder. I don't understand how this can be seen as anything other than that.
OK, lemme consult with Tony Martin
qua whether we shud take ENGLAND as our example
in the law of defense of self and of property.

Is he still languishing in an English prison ???????

The English shud declare a HOLIDAY in his honor
and put his picture on English money, for inspirational purposes.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:28 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
unarmed?

have you ever had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea thrown in your face Razz
How about the Moslems on all 4 of the stolen planes on 9/11/1??????
How well armed were all, or any, of THEM???????

Does anyone in this forum KNOW
what decedent was actually DOING in the last few minutes of his life????

Correct me, if I 'm in error, but my impression is that
he was not still on the fone at the time of death.

We might also note that on too many occasions,
the police have also mistakenly killed unarmed individuals.
The Dialo case in NYC comes to mind; there have been others.
DrewDad
 
  7  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Does anyone in this forum KNOW
what decedent was actually DOING in the last few minutes of his life????

Running away from the nutcase that had him in his crosshairs, and begging not to be shot, by all accounts.
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:38 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
We might also note that on too many occasions,
the police have also mistakenly killed unarmed individuals.
The Dialo case in NYC comes to mind; there have been others.

Er... What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Red herring, much?




According to the folks who drafted the "stand your ground" law, it does not give anyone the authority to confront someone and then claim self defense. At the point where he was instructed not to follow the boy, and did so anyway, he lost any claim to self defense.
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:47 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
At the point where he was instructed not to follow the boy, and did so anyway, he lost any claim to self defense.


Or so one would think.

You're a Texan, do you remember the Joe Horn case?

He shot two people who were breaking into a neighbors house after the police had told him to stay inside his own house, that the police were on the way. He got off.
CoastalRat
 
  8  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:48 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
At the point where he was instructed not to follow the boy, and did so anyway, he lost any claim to self defense.

I cannot believe it took this long for someone to point this out. By Florida law, Trayvon would have been on firmer legal ground shooting this idiot than this idiot had shooting him.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:58 am
@DrewDad,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Does anyone in this forum KNOW
what decedent was actually DOING in the last few minutes of his life????
DrewDad wrote:
Running away from the nutcase that had him in his crosshairs, [ on a pistol??? ]
and begging not to be shot, by all accounts.
Were there WITNESSES??????
Was there discussion of being "shot" ????





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:03 am
@DrewDad,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
We might also note that on too many occasions,
the police have also mistakenly killed unarmed individuals.
The Dialo case in NYC comes to mind; there have been others.
DrewDad wrote:
Er... What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Red herring, much?




According to the folks who drafted the "stand your ground" law, it does not give anyone the authority to confront someone and then claim self defense. At the point where he was instructed not to follow the boy, and did so anyway, he lost any claim to self defense.
The police have no authority
to control who follows anyone.

Mr. Zimmerman asserts that he was attacked; if he was,
then he had a right to defend himself. We all do.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:05 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
At the point where he was instructed not to follow the boy, and did so anyway, he lost any claim to self defense.
boomerang wrote:
Or so one would think.

You're a Texan, do you remember the Joe Horn case?

He shot two people who were breaking into a neighbors house
after the police had told him to stay inside his own house,
that the police were on the way. He got off.
Presumably, his nabor was grateful.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You need to keep up to date, he was let out a long time ago. Even he didn't sit out the front of his house, shooting at passers by he didn't like the look of.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:16 am
@izzythepush,
Your government raped Tony Martin; it was a disgrace.
It adopted a philosophical alliance with evil, against Good.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 06:17:49