44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
He laid in wait to kill someone. He got off very lightly all things considered. That pales into insignificance when you look at all the innocent people murdered by gun nuts, with legally held firearms in, "the home of the brave."
ehBeth
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Were there WITNESSES??????
Was there discussion of being "shot" ????


why are you asking people here to read the news for you?

we know you're capable of looking these things up - we see the threads you post about gun laws
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your government raped Tony Martin;


Our government had nothing to do with. He was tried by jury and found guilty. If he'd been as squeaky clean as you say, he would have been acquitted.

We have an independent judiciary donchaknow.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:33 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
He laid in wait to kill someone.
To kill criminals that broke into his house!!! The DECENT people of England were the safer for it.
If thay stayed away, then thay 'd have been safe.
Tony Martin shud have been elevated to the nobility
and granted vast lands, in recognition of his virtue.


izzythepush wrote:
He got off very lightly all things considered.
U advocate the defense of evil.
U wish to avenge defeated evil.
That is what was inflicted upon Tony Martin.



izzythepush wrote:
That pales into insignificance when you look at all the innocent people murdered by gun nuts,
with legally held firearms in, "the home of the brave."
That is CONSTITUTIONALLY held firearms,
as in we withheld jurisdiction from our hireling employee, government, over firearms.
How many innocent people were murdered by gun nuts in this century??
Anyone other than Trayvon (in your opinion) ??





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:38 am
@ehBeth,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Were there WITNESSES??????
Was there discussion of being "shot" ????
ehBeth wrote:
why are you asking people here to read the news for you?

we know you're capable of looking these things up - we see the threads you post about gun laws
I am CHALLENGING the allegation that there is evidence
of decedent begging not to be shot.





David
izzythepush
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The glib way you use terms like good and evil is really quite ridiculous. By arguing for the rights of murderers to gun people down in the street, you're the one embracing evil.
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
if you are proven wrong, will you give up the ludicrous defense you are attempting to put on for this creep?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:49 am
@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Your government raped Tony Martin;
izzythepush wrote:


Our government had nothing to do with. He was tried by jury and found guilty.
Do u deny that this jury was charged by the court with allegedly applicable English law???????


izzythepush wrote:
If he'd been as squeaky clean as you say, he would have been acquitted.
I have a hunch that the jury was charged with perverted collectivistic law, very contrary to English tradition.
However, I will admit that the jury coud have rebelled and freed him.



izzythepush wrote:
We have an independent judiciary donchaknow.
Yes, I DON 'T know that.
Your courts r parts of your government, along with its executive and legislature.
That is probably true everywhere.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 11:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I have a hunch that the jury was charged with perverted collectivistic law


got any evidence of that?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:04 pm
@ehBeth,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I have a hunch that the jury was charged with perverted collectivistic law
ehBeth wrote:
got any evidence of that?
I have not read the trial transcripts.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:12 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The glib way you use terms like good and evil is really quite ridiculous.
Criminals who break into people 's houses are evil.
People who defensively kill evil are good, very good; admirable. KUDOS to Tony Martin!!!
I 'm not sure that I 'd be as good as that.
I a spirit of laziness, I might just throw him out, if that were possible.



izzythepush wrote:
By arguing for the rights of murderers to gun people down in the street, you're the one embracing evil.
U r eager to jump to conclusions.

I prefer a presumption of innocence.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:15 pm
@Rockhead,
If ANYTHING about ANYTHING is "proven"
then, definitionally, I will agree to it.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Why would I deny that Martin was tried for breaking the law?

Some years ago I heard on the radio that a grieving father, whose daughter was killed by a drunken driver, went round the driver's house and shot him in the stomach with a shotgun, paralysing him from the waist down. When it came to court, it was discovered that the driver had been guilty of drunk driving on many occasions, and had received a paltry prison sentence. After very emotional testimony, the grieving father was found not guilty of all charges.

An extreme case of juries deciding to go with the spirit of the law, it happens. It didn't happen in Martin's case.
Ceili
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 12:41 pm
I would have thought the STAND in "stand your ground" was enough to infer following someone wasn't what the law intended.
Or are all gun nuts obtuse?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:34 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
I would have thought the STAND in "stand your ground"
was enough to infer following someone wasn't what the law intended.
Or are all gun nuts obtuse?
This is your idea of statutory interpretation ?????
Ceili
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Yes Dave and I bet if you read it again, it will become much clearer to you too. Stand your ground doesn't mean follow then chase after an unarmed kid and shoot him. It's relatively simple. I'm sure if you think about it you'll get it. Go on, give it a whirl.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:50 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Why would I deny that Martin was tried for breaking the law?

Some years ago I heard on the radio that a grieving father, whose daughter was killed by a drunken driver, went round the driver's house and shot him in the stomach with a shotgun, paralysing him from the waist down. When it came to court, it was discovered that the driver had been guilty of drunk driving on many occasions, and had received a paltry prison sentence. After very emotional testimony, the grieving father was found not guilty of all charges.

An extreme case of juries deciding to go with the spirit of the law, it happens.
It didn't happen in Martin's case
.
I can only agree with your opinion of this.
Sometimes, vengeance rises above everything else in the mind and values of the avenger.
Tho I have not been ardent in my admiration of the TV actor, Mr. T,
I thawt quite well of his character (and of that of his brothers)
when he mentioned to Barbara Walters that after his mother
complained of getting mugged by one of their nabors,
he and his brothers set out in pursuit of him, and:
" u won 't see him no more."

Sometimes, all other considerations are subordinated to personal justice by the avenger, come what may.
That reveals something about one 's virtue.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:57 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Yes Dave and I bet if you read it again, it will become much clearer to you too. Stand your ground doesn't mean follow then chase after an unarmed kid and shoot him. It's relatively simple. I'm sure if you think about it you'll get it. Go on, give it a whirl.
O, so u DID read the statute, huh, Ceili ?
( I have not. )

Pretty good chance that after following him, if he violently attacks,
then a citizen can defend himself. In the face of your statutory expertise,
will u confirm or deny that???





David
Ceili
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Apparently, not only haven't you read the statute, you're having problems understanding a simple phrase. I'm not sure why anyone would follow someone looking to get violently attacked. Most sane people would run or hide, not look for an excuse to shoot an innocent and plea self defense.

You gun nuts really stick together, eh!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
There are multiple reports of Trayvon calling for help just before the gunshots.

I know that this whole event contradicts your whole narrative about how it's good for society when people go around armed, but you're really grasping at straws, here.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:42:41