44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:15 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Don't be ridiculous David, nobody's at all happy.


It's you guys' own fault for keeping everyone disarmed.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:16 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Jumping to conclusions. Simply put he should go to jail because he was stalking the kid. He should have called the cops than got the hell out of the way.


Keeping tabs on a suspicious person is not a crime.

And he did in fact get out of the way. He stopped following Trayvon once the dispatcher advised him that they did not need him to do that.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:48 pm
@oralloy,
You mean some other stupid asshole shot Trayvon?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:49 pm
@oralloy,

izzythepush wrote:
Don't be ridiculous David, nobody's at all happy.
oralloy wrote:

It's you guys' own fault for keeping everyone disarmed.
England was not ALWAYS that way.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:51 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Jumping to conclusions.
Simply put he should go to jail because he was stalking the kid.
U ASSUME that is against some law there.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person, watching them from a distance, or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.
According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat more strict.

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

"stalking", yet another perfectly good word ruined by over expansion of its definition....sure martin did not want to be confronted, but this does not mean that his stalker was wrong, as perhaps martin was a punk kid who needed to be confronted about his behavior. Calling Zimmerman a stalker gets a yawn from me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
It seems un-likely that the "National Center for Victims of Crime"
has any law-making jurisdiction, beyond bloviating.





DaVid
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 01:35 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David, instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking. In this case having the police officers armed would have made very little difference, they believed they were responding to a burglary call, where the criminal had left, they were walking into a trap.

I don't read the simplistic grunts of inbred imbeciles, so I'd appreciate it if you don't quote creatures with such a shallow a gene pool. You don't need to, it only has four responses, and is very predictable.

There is a debate going on about arming the police, or increasing sentencing. This is from The Telegraph, a right wing broadsheet, colloquially known as The Torygraph, so it should be right up your street.

Quote:
In the crime museum at Scotland Yard are a dozen or so cutlasses of the sort that constables once took on their patrols of Victorian London. Unlike the two WPcs murdered in Manchester on Tuesday, they went expecting trouble and bearing the means to combat it.

Arguments over whether the police should be routinely armed date to the creation of the capital’s first force by Robert Peel in 1829. Indeed, senior officers in the 19th century would often carry a side-arm. But British policing took a different direction from that of Europe or America by declining to issue weapons on a routine basis (apart from in Northern Ireland).

The reason for this was set out in Peel’s principles of policing: he regarded the police as the public in uniform. Not for us the military–style Continental carabinieri of whom the general populace walk in fear and distrust. Our police, said Peel, are civilians, members of the public “who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence”.

This relationship explains why we find the murder of police officers so especially shocking: they act as our proxies, required to place themselves in circumstances that, thankfully, we can stay clear of. This has led to a style of policing that emphasises containment, negotiation and the use of force as a last resort. By and large, it has made this country a less violent place than those where the police are armed. On the other hand, it leaves our police more vulnerable to the cornered gangster, the ruthless drug-trafficker or the evil cop-hater who carry guns and are prepared to use them.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9553111/Do-we-really-want-to-arm-our-police.html
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 02:32 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David,
instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking.
Olde Chinese Proverb:
"He who woud deliberate fully
before taking a step will spend his whole life on one foot."






izzythepush wrote:
In this case having the police officers armed would have made very little difference,
they believed they were responding to a burglary call, where the criminal had left, they were walking into a trap.
That (being unarmed & assuming
that the bad guys had left, i.e.: underestimating the enemy)
was professional negligence, resulting in unnecessary loss of life.

Those circumstances were not unique.
That was not the first time in history that the same thing happened.
Thay were NOT prepared to do their jobs. No kudos.




izzythepush wrote:
I don't read the simplistic grunts of inbred imbeciles, so I'd appreciate it if you don't quote creatures with such a shallow a gene pool. You don't need to, it only has four responses, and is very predictable.
I don 't understand. I am aware of no such person.




izzythepush wrote:
There is a debate going on about arming the police, or increasing sentencing.
This is from The Telegraph, a right wing broadsheet, colloquially known as The Torygraph,
so it should be right up your street.
It is my articulated position
that laws against ` any human being possessing
such defensive emergency equipment as he deems necessary to preserve his life
amount to a de facto PARTNERSHIP between government and perpetrators of predatory violence,
be thay man or beast. Laws against defensively bearing arms (as Englishmen commonly used to do)
are, in effect, laws that require the populace to volunteer to be slaughtered, in the DISCRETION
of violent predators. From that: I DISSENT.








Quote:
In the crime museum at Scotland Yard are a dozen or so cutlasses of the sort that constables once took on their patrols of Victorian London. Unlike the two WPcs murdered in Manchester on Tuesday, they went expecting trouble and bearing the means to combat it.

Arguments over whether the police should be routinely armed date to the creation of the capital’s first force by Robert Peel in 1829. Indeed, senior officers in the 19th century would often carry a side-arm. But British policing took a different direction from that of Europe or America by declining to issue weapons on a routine basis (apart from in Northern Ireland). [It was the same in America: police used their own private guns, of their own choice. David]

The reason for this was set out in Peel’s principles of policing: he regarded the police as the public in uniform. Not for us the military–style Continental carabinieri of whom the general populace walk in fear and distrust. Our police, said Peel, are civilians, members of the public “who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence”.

This relationship explains why we find the murder of police officers so especially shocking: they act as our proxies, required to place themselves in circumstances that, thankfully, we can stay clear of. This has led to a style of policing that emphasises containment, negotiation and the use of force as a last resort. By and large, it has made this country a less violent place than those where the police are armed. On the other hand, it leaves our police more vulnerable to the cornered gangster, the ruthless drug-trafficker or the evil cop-hater who carry guns and are prepared to use them.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9553111/Do-we-really-want-to-arm-our-police.html
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 02:39 am
@izzythepush,
izzytheNazi wrote:
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David, instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own lack of thought.



izzytheNazi wrote:
In this case having the police officers armed would have made very little difference, they believed they were responding to a burglary call, where the criminal had left, they were walking into a trap.


Don't assume, just because you are too stupid to avoid being caught in a trap, that everyone else is just as stupid as you are.



izzytheNazi wrote:
simplistic grunts of inbred imbeciles


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own inbred stupidity.



izzytheNazi wrote:
creatures with such a shallow a gene pool.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own inbred stupidity.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 03:43 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David,
instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking.
Olde Chinese Proverb:
"He who woud deliberate fully
before taking a step will spend his whole life on one foot."


That's absolute nonsense David. What is A2K if it's not a forum for deliberation? As such it helps to be informed, otherwise you end up looking ridiculous.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 05:02 am
@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David,
instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking.
Olde Chinese Proverb:
"He who woud deliberate fully
before taking a step will spend his whole life on one foot."
izzythepush wrote:
That's absolute nonsense David. What is A2K if it's not a forum for deliberation?
As such it helps to be informed, otherwise you end up looking ridiculous.
I don 't always have the energy or the time to read the whole thread.





David
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 05:50 am
I see that this thread is full of love and respect
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 07:47 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I see that this thread is full of love and respect

and virtual bullet holes
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  7  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2017 06:02 pm
3 years ago, a then 71 year old retired police officer got irrationally angry at a man for using a cell phone during the PREVIEWS BEFORE A MOVIE. He complained to the guy, he complained to the management, he continued to press the issue. The guy confronted him and threw popcorn at him. The retired cop then drew his gun and murdered a 43 year old who had been texting the babysitter who was watching his 3 year old. A judge will rule this week whether Florida's "Stand Your Ground" (aka shoot first and get away with murder) law applies. He deserves to spend what little is left of his life in prison. Let's see how this plays out.
McGentrix
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2017 06:41 pm
@jcboy,
That's why you don't text in a darkened theater.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2017 10:17 pm
@jcboy,
Unpoped kernels are dangerous JC. They might hit you in the eye and blind you. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2017 11:06 pm
@RABEL222,
Unpopped kernals may be dangerous, but the cost of popped popcorn is dangerous too!
Here's the dope on cost of popcorn in theaters.
According to this ABC News report, the average tub of popcorn at a movie theater costs more per ounce than a filet mignon. They state the average small bucket of popcorn will usually cost $5.50 or so. OUCH!

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2017 03:45 am
@jcboy,
I recall from the Zimmerman self defense case that in Florida, second degree murder is specifically depraved heart murder.

Why are cases that are clearly not depraved heart murder (a very specific circumstance) being charged as such in Florida?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2017 10:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I dont worry about popcorn. I havent been to a theater in 20 years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 08:16:08