44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:24 pm
@snood,
Quote:
For those of you still following this case without trying to grind any particular axe, this is a pretty dispassionate analysis of the Martin case that frames the relevant issues quite well, in my opinion. It is useful, especially with the constantly clanging voices of those entrenched on one side or the other, to read something like this just to remember what's at stake in this case.


If you think this is unbiased then you are delusional. Not a shock there.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:12 am
@DrewDad,
U appear to be confused, DD.

DrewDad wrote:
A clear case of cognitive dissonance.

David's entire self portrait is built on the premise
that carrying a gun is a smart thing to do.
I re-iterate that it is carrying health insurance; literally.
It is possessing the means to control some emergencies that can arise.
The alternative is to live in a state of helplessness,
and "cast your fate to the winds."

Woud u brag of having no jack in your trunk, DD ??




DrewDad wrote:
If other people who carry guns do stupid things,
then that would mean that carrying a gun doesn't automatically
make him smart, and that is intolerable.
No. That is an error in your logic, DD; a non-sequitur.
U misrepresent my position, falsely substituting one of your contrivance and attributing it to ME.
Putting on or taking off my guns has NO EFFECT upon my I.Q.,
but an intelligent man or boy shud wish to be able to survive predatory emergencies,
knowing that each such event is a contest of power between the predator and his victim.
An intelligent man knows that it is better to win than to lose.






DrewDad wrote:
Therefore, Zimmerman must have done the right thing,
no matter what knots Davids psyche has to twist itself into.
That is obvious foolishness.
Possession of emergency equipment has no effect upon anyone's intelligence.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Possession of emergency equipment has no effect upon anyone's intelligence.


Is this chance of "emergency" precipitated by failed civilization? A corrupt state? What are we to make of a smart guy who has devoted his life to the law arguing in essence that we should live as if all of America is on par with the historical lawless American West? If the law is so useless as you seem to think it is why did you invest so much into it?
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:28 am
@FreeDuck,
The weight differential was more like 80 lbs. Zimmerman was 250 lbs at that time.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:33 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

The weight differential was more like 80 lbs. Zimmerman was 250 lbs at that time.


Idiot

Quote:
Literally tens of thousands of publications and media outlets have reported that George Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds and Trayvon Martin weighed 140 pounds.

The weight of 250 pounds for George Zimmerman was based on a police report that was over six years old. He has since lost a lot of weight. Newer pictures of Zimmerman show a much slimmer man.

Media outlets have reported several different heights for George Zimmerman. They have ranged from 5'2" to 5'9". The Sanford police report from the night of the shooting lists Zimmerman at 5'9".

The police surveillance video, recently shown on ABC National News shows a fairly slender George Zimmerman the night of the attack. A close friend of Zimmerman, Joe Oliver, says Zimmerman is 5'8" and currently only weighs 170 pounds.

The police estimated Trayvon at 6'0" and 160 pounds when they wrote the police report the night he was shot. This was probably a conservative estimate, as his family has reported his height at 6'2".



Continue reading on Examiner.com George Zimmerman weighs 170#; Trayvon Martin 160# - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-weighs-170-trayvon-martin-160#ixzz1sYli84fp
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:34 am
@hawkeye10,
Thanks for the correction. How special...considering your source article which you posted lists weights that vary widely, too, What is consistantly reported is the fact that Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon and was 11 yr his senior.

When your only desire is to jump down someone's throat, be sure you quote some facts that are more precise.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:35 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

Thanks for the correction. How special!


Know propaganda when you see it, it is the truth which will set you free.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:41 am
@hawkeye10,
I will enjoy seeing the trial end with proper justice. I would venture to say we are in agreement there. Who cares how many pounds Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon? It is a fact that is not crucial to the case. The facts will surface and the jury and judge and hopefully this will resolve sooner rather than later.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 12:56 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

I will enjoy seeing the trial end with proper justice. I would venture to say we are in agreement there. Who cares how many pounds Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon? It is a fact that is not crucial to the case. The facts will surface and the jury and judge and hopefully this will resolve sooner rather than later.


I am not convinced that the facts are knowable, in which case there is no way to lawfully conclude that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. The laws are poorly written, and while they should be fixed there is no civil way to make new law retroactively apply to this confrontation.

So far there is no indication that the state has any evidence against Zimmerman. Perhaps we will see some today (friday) at the bail hearing, but I am not counting on it.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 01:00 am
@hawkeye10,
So you are speculating that the facts aren't knowable? Correct?

Sometimes a ton of circumstantial evidence can create a valid 'triable' case. Whether or not that is the case here remains to be seen.

I am convinced that the law should be struck down. Perhaps there will be an ultimate good deriving from this trial, but only if this vague dangerous law is overturned or modified considerably.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 01:11 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

So you are speculating that the facts aren't knowable? Correct?

I am convinced that the law should be struck down. Perhaps there will be an ultimate good deriving from this trial, but only if this vague dangerous law is overturned or modified considerably.


Not really...the critical point is did Martin attack Zimmerman?? With Martin dead and no witnesses I am not sure we can know, as even the wounds on Zimmerman dont tell us who the aggressor was. As for the states claim that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime because of his alleged callous disregard for Martins safety by pursuing and carrying a gun, that is not going to go anywhere. Carrying the gun was a legal act. Pursuing was a legal act. You can not add one legal act to a second legal act and get a crime.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 01:13 am
@izzythepush,
Thank u, Izzy.
Sounds interesting. U r a good fellow.

David



izzythepush wrote:
Interesting article in today's Guardian about the NRA.
Quote:
The NRA is not entirely certain what to do with its partial success.
Partly it keeps pushing for laws that would expand the places where guns might be carried,
including churches, bars and college campuses (it supports a group called Students for Concealed Carry).
Yes; the point is that the Bill of Rights
disables government from having any jurisdiction
to interfere in any citizen's right to defend his life and his other property,
the same way that it has no jurisdiction to MAKE u go to Church, against your will.
These are matters of personal preference,
in the exercise of Individual rights, natural rights, Constitutional rights.

However, government HAS jurisdiction
to remove chronically recidivistic violent criminals
from contact with the decent people. In some States,
thay have been sentenced to several centuries of incarceration.






Quote:
Partly, it opposes even the most basic controls, such as legislation to ban gun sales
to people on the government's terrorist watchlist, meaning a
suspected terrorist can be denied the right to board a plane but not to buy a gun.
Yes; being gunless can get him KILLED by man or beast.
A citizen can get on that watch list for no defined reason
(without being informed that he is on it)
and it can be impossible to get off that list.
When someone else with the same name
has gotten on the list, other folks with that name have been screwn.
It has taken them ridiculous amounts of time & lawyers' fees to get off of it.
Ted Kennedy got rejected at an airport
for being on that list. The Senator had trouble getting off it.
Maybe it was because he drank too much while airborne. I dunno.
Anyway, defense of your life is more important than flying.
A citizen cannot be screwn out of his Constitutional rights simply
by FBI putting him on a list
. The Constitution out-ranks the FBI.







Quote:
This has left the NRA with a problem.
Now the Democrats have caved and the supreme court has a pro-gun majority,
it simply has no worthy enemy.
We can live with that,
as long as the status quo ante is re-established and
any trace of gun control is annihilated,
equally as well as nazism was purged from Germany in 1945.







Quote:
No one at the convention can point to a single concrete piece of legislation from the White House that they didn't like. Instead, they simply raise the spectre of an Obama second term. Unfettered by the need to stand again, he will come for your guns. There is absolutely nothing, beyond his right to appoint people to the Supreme Court and beyond, to suggest this is true. But there is nothing to prove it couldn't be either.
Its better to be safe than sorry.







Quote:
In Missouri, says Oxford, one representative attempted to add gun ownership to the list of protected categories alongside race, gender and disability so that no gun owner could be discriminated against in employment. "We asked her if she knew anyone that had ever happened to," says Oxford. "She didn't."
It is very, very common for legislation to be enacted
on a theoretical, prospective basis, as distinct from a remedy of past troubles.
The legislature simply defines the legal rights of the citizens.
That is not new.









Quote:
It is this fear, of the unknown and the known, both manufactured,
exploited and real, that hangs over the convention.
No. In my experience, there is little emotion
at NRA meetings; thay r rather matter-of-fact, analytical and objective.







Quote:
Time and again people paint scenarios in which I or my family might be attacked,
threatened or in some way violated as a rationale for arming myself.
Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not have it.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 01:18 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Oh great.....this gets crazier and crazier.
Hordes of paranoid people with guns and nobody to be paranoid about. That's a vacuum of sorts.
Is that a professional diagnosis??????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 01:21 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Based on the footage, it wasn't much of a wound. Given that he was treated by paramedics but the wound wasn't even bandaged, it hardly seems like he was subject to a beating severe enough that someone would need to shoot their way out of it.
It is a WISE thing to do,
to avoid future injury to the head.

Its better to be tried by 12 men than carried by 6.





David
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 03:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Don't you think it's ridiculous that someone on the terrorist watch list can be barred from boarding a plane, but not from buying a gun?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 04:26 am
@izzythepush,
I think your question is ridiculous. If you have been on this site for more than a month you should know that David believes that each person should have a gun for every door and window in his home for personal protection.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:13 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Don't you think it's ridiculous that someone on the terrorist watch list
can be barred from boarding a plane, but not from buying a gun?
Yes, I certainly don 't think that is "ridiculous".
Did u read my comments on that point, Izzy??
( See footnote * for your convenient reference, below. )


(Altho it is obvious that whoever chooses to arm himself
will do so, regardless of the state of the law
or the law of the State, as thay do for marijuana or heroin),
government cannot screw any citizen out of his Constitutional rights.
That very clearly cannot be accomplished by an agency of government
putting his name on a LIST. If it were possbile for government to succeed in doing that,
then the Supreme Law of the Land woud be less than a joke; the political power of government
woud be infinite, like Saddam or Stalin, forever unrestrained.
We woud NOT have a free country.

Additionally, there is nothing in that Supreme Law
that expressly entitles him to fly, whereas there IS a provision,
expressly disempowering government from interfering
with his personal armament. Government explicitly has NO jurisdiction to do that,
any more than it can force him to read the NY Times
or to go to Church against his will.

Matters of defensive personal armament
were explicitly put beyond the reach of government,
altho that is not necessarily true of flying. U cannot find an enumerated
right to fly in the Supreme Law of the Land.

I submit that the right of any person to defend his life
is much more FUNDAMENTAL than any other right; it is existential.

I do concede that Congress has been granted control of Interstate Commerce,
including flying planes over State lines, but no government in America,
including Congress, was awarded jurisdiction over matters of personal armament,
any more than it was awarded control over any citizen 's religious beliefs.

When the Bill of Rights was enacted, in 1791,
there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, either, until the next century.
( Private citizens did hire watchmen.)
Accordingly, everyone had always been expected to take care of himself.
Some American colonies had gun control, requiring the citizens
to be well armed, on their way to Church or to work,
for safety 's sake, in the same spirit as today 's seatbelt requirements.





David

* . . . being gunless can get him KILLED by man or beast.
A citizen can get on that watch list for no defined reason
(without being informed that he is on it)
and it can be impossible to get off that list.
When someone else with the same name
has gotten on the list, other folks with that name have been screwn.
It has taken them ridiculous amounts of time & lawyers' fees to get off of it.
Ted Kennedy got rejected at an airport
for being on that list. The Senator had trouble getting off it.
Maybe it was because he drank too much while airborne. I dunno.
Anyway, defense of your life is more important than flying.

A citizen cannot be screwn out of his Constitutional rights simply
by FBI putting him on a list
. The Constitution out-ranks the FBI.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:16 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
I think your question is ridiculous. If you have been on this site for more than a month
you should know that David believes that each person should have a gun for every door
and window in his home for personal protection.
Every citizen can freely plan and arrange his residential defenses,
for his optimal convenience, as he sees fit.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
When the Bill of Rights was enacted, in 1791,
there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, either, until the next century.
( Private citizens did hire watchmen.)


Quote:
The Bow Street Runners have been called London's first professional police force. The force was founded in 1749 by the author Henry Fielding and originally numbered just six. Bow Street runners was the public's nickname for these officers, "although the officers never referred to themselves as runners, considering the term to be derogatory".The Bow Street group was disbanded in 1839.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:56 am
@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
When the Bill of Rights was enacted, in 1791,
there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, either, until the next century.
( Private citizens did hire watchmen.)
izzythepush wrote:


Quote:
The Bow Street Runners have been called London's first professional police force. The force was founded in 1749 by the author Henry Fielding and originally numbered just six. Bow Street runners was the public's nickname for these officers, "although the officers never referred to themselves as runners, considering the term to be derogatory".The Bow Street group was disbanded in 1839.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Street_Runners
Thank u for that information, Izzy.
I 'd been under the impression that your Prime Minister Robert Peel
had gotten credit for creating the first government-based police force in England, around 1829,
after experimenting with it in Ireland,
and that accordingly, those new police were called "Bobbies" in his honor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peel
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 04:27:40