@sozobe,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Without the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman might not have carried a loaded gun, in which case Martin wouldn't have been killed. Of course Zimmerman might have met his end, but that wouldn't get the attention this story has received.
sozobe wrote:And why would Zimmerman have been killed?
From having his head pounded against the sidewalk, a lethal weapon.
sozobe wrote:Do you think he would have been as emboldened to go after a person who thought was suspicious without a gun?
Sure; there is nothing morally nor legally rong with following and looking at anyone.
sozobe wrote:And remember, that fact is not in dispute. Trayvon Martin was walking along when he was first followed in a car for a while, then the guy got out and followed him on foot.
Even if it turns out that Trayvon did hit Zimmerman -- and I still find the evidence less than compelling there so far -- it would be in the context of this guy following him.
YES. There is nothing rong with
DOING that.
David
@MontereyJack,
You don't? Well that's just further evidence of your narrow mindedness.
I wonder how that happened, In any case here's a link that should work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI
@sozobe,
Quote:This wasn't a policeman, in a police car, where it was obvious where it was going on. It was some random guy following him and quite possibly up to no good.
And if it comes known that TM beat on GM, wouldn't he have been simply standing his ground?
Late to edit -
the Mosley book I read was not recent - my reading of it was. Adding this for Mosley fans I might have confused.
Finn says:
Quote:You don't? Well that's just further evidence of your narrow mindedness
And you do? Please indicate to me where.
@MontereyJack,
I think that was an attempt at humor by Finn based on his embarrassed emoticon.
But it is funny how he lashes out when it's HIS mistake.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:You are somewhat alone then.
Now we need a determination on what transpired between the two in terms of physical assault in order to resolve whether or not the Stand Your Ground law unneccessarily contributed to the young man's death.
If Martin was as violent as Zimmerman claims, then the victim might have reasonably feared for his life and reasonably defended himself.
Long have I disliked how that law is written,
that your
RIGHTS depend upon your
EMOTION.
Was the law enacted only for the defense of
scardicats ???
Many, many guys have been violently attacked, myself included,
and we had
no response of fear; we were too busy taking care of self defense. The fact that someone is
NOT afraid,
morally, does not govern his right to defend his life and his other property.
A lot of guys who were violently attacked simply did
not have
TIME to fear anything.
Accordingly, fear was not an element of the event.
David
Fine, I'm willing to accept that Florida should have written the law so that it was clear that Trayvon had a perfect right to do anything up to and including kill Zimmerman even though in the heat of the moment he might not have had time to feel fear. Too bad under the circumnstances he didn't kill him. Does that make you more comfortable, David?
@MontereyJack,
You need to develop a sense of humor Jack
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Under Florida's Kill At Will Law,Trayvon reasonably could have concluded that his life was under imminent threat and killed Zimmerman. He knew he'd done nothing, he was only trying to get home. He'd run to avoid confrontation, and here was this guy again, coming after him with a gun on his hip, and confronting him.There is no getting around the fact that guns have an intimate connection with violence. If Trayvon wasn't reasonably afraid for his life, he was naive. And that, under Florida law, is all you need. Under Florida's incredibly lax conception of evidence, he should have taken out his piece and blown Zimmerman away. And I can just imagine the flap that would cause among the right wing faithful and the NRA. Unfortunately in this case he didn't have a gun. Under David's and Florida's conception of preemptive violence, he could have and should have done all he could to stop Zimmerman before he shot him. He should have kicked him, beat him with a tree limb, pounded his head on the sidewalk, to defend himself from the likely prospect of violence. Somehow I don't see you guys defending Trayvon's clear right under Florida law to stop Zimmerman however he could and kill him if he felt it necessary. Why is that?
For the same reason that Trayvon would have been immediately slapped in jail had he been the shooter. But I doubt you will get any honest answers about that.
True on both counts, snood.
Finn says:
Quote: You need to develop a sense of humor Jack
If you think your reply was humorous, Finn, I foresee a lifetime of really, really tough audiences for you if you ever decide to try standup.
@MontereyJack,
Only people with guns have the right to kill at will.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote: Of course Zimmerman might have met his end, but that wouldn't get the attention this story has received.
No indeed, it would not, because the headline "black guy arrested for killing innocent neighbor hood watch guy", though it would play well for the NRA, doesn't touch anyone's injustice nerve the way this story has. Just for fun, google "unarmed man shot" and let me know how long it takes you to get to a white guy.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:Fine, I'm willing to accept that Florida should have written the law so that it was clear that Trayvon had a perfect right to do anything up to and including kill Zimmerman even though in the heat of the moment he might not have had time to feel fear.
There was no showing of
any threat.
Mere following, or watching, is not a threat.
MontereyJack wrote:Too bad under the circumnstances he didn't kill him.
I guess
U think so.
MontereyJack wrote:Does that make you more comfortable, David?
No. What 'd make me more comfortable is that the victim
of the first person to break the peace is legally justified, as Mr. Z was and
is.
So far as I understand
: decedent broke the peace b4 Mr. Z did,
who then successfully defended himself.
David
Doesn't make any difference who makes or made the first move, David. Under Florida law, Trayvon had the sole unquestionable right to decide whether or not he was under imminent threat of use of deadly force. If he decided yes, he had no need to retreat, AS HE ALREADY HAD DONE ONCE, THO NOT REQUIRED TO UNDER LAW, he could take whatever action was needed to remove that threat. As the law has played out in use, considering that Zimmerman had come after him even tho he retreated, as he presented the use of deadly force, having his gun in plain sight, and as he was confronting Trayvon, and as indeed looking at the site where the shooting took place, readily available online, if Trayvon retreated again there was no way to get away without giving Zimmerman a lot of time to shoot him down, so he was clearly entitled to use deadly force against Zimmerman, and the law says he couldn't be charged with a crime for that. The law cuts both ways, David. Trayvon could legally take preemptive action, well justified as it turns out, and use any force up to and including deadly force to remove the threat he felt Zimmerman posedto him. Here's once where I agree with you, David. Trayvon should have had a gun and he could legally have shot first and killed Zimmerman, or hit him first and rendered him unable to act.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:Doesn't make any difference who makes or made the first move, David.
Under Florida law, Trayvon had the sole unquestionable right to decide whether
or not he was under imminent threat of use of deadly force.
That is
false. U r only being emotional.
The statute provides that the belief of a threat must be
"reasonable".
If someone believes that for
no reason, then the statute is not in operation.
Being followed is no reason to believe in any threat.
MontereyJack wrote:If he decided yes, he had no need to retreat, AS HE ALREADY HAD DONE ONCE, THO NOT REQUIRED TO UNDER LAW,
he could take whatever action was needed to remove that threat.
That depends on whether his perception of danger is
REASONABLE or not.
MontereyJack wrote:As the law has played out in use, considering that Zimmerman had come after him even tho he retreated,
There is nothing rong with following anyone.
MontereyJack wrote:as he presented the use of deadly force, having his gun in plain sight,
U know that
HOW???
MontereyJack wrote:and as he was confronting Trayvon, and as indeed looking at the site where the shooting took place, readily available online, if Trayvon retreated again there was no way to get away without giving Zimmerman a lot of time to shoot him down, so he was clearly entitled to use deadly force against Zimmerman, and the law says he couldn't be charged with a crime for that. The law cuts both ways, David. Trayvon could legally take preemptive action, well justified as it turns out, and kill Zimmerman. Here's once where I agree with you, David. Trayvon should have had a gun and he could legally have shot first and killed Zimmerman.
That depends on what Mr. Z actually
DID.
I do not believe your allegations of fact.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:That is false. U r only being emotional.
The statute provides that the belief of a threat must be "reasonable".
If someone believes that for no reason, then the statute is not in operation.
Being followed is no reason to believe in any threat.
Right, deadly force is not justified when a citizen asks you what you are up to in is neighborhood, but is justified when someone is bashing your head against the cement. The problem for me is that I seriously doubt Zimmermans story.
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:That is false. U r only being emotional.
The statute provides that the belief of a threat must be "reasonable".
If someone believes that for no reason, then the statute is not in operation.
Being followed is no reason to believe in any threat.
hawkeye10 wrote:Right, deadly force is not justified when a citizen asks you what you are up to in is neighborhood,
but is justified when someone is bashing your head against the cement.
YES. That 's the whole point.
David
And as the law is playing out in actual effect, if someone says they thought they could be subject to deadly force, they get off You don't have to actually prove anything, it's purely your state of mind.
The news accounts say Zimmerman had his gun in a holster on his hip. That's how I know, David. Gun equals deadly force. Has for 500 years. It's a little late now to argue somehow it doesn't.
Trayvon couldn';t get away from him, tho he tried. Zimmerman forced the confrontation, which gives Trayvon even more justified fear for his life.
We llive in a country where a kid who comes to someone's door asking where an address in the neighborhood is can be killed because the residents didn't understand him, and then the people who shot him can be acquited for that shooting. The standards for what consitutes a reasonable sense of threat are very very low if you're white. Not anywhere near so low if you're a young black kid. As you're proving again,David. Double standard, much?
