"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

When you are confronted by facts, it is rather poor form for you to retreat to the use of ad hominem lies

I can kill you if I think you might commit a felony, and you are OK with that??!! Damn, death row appeals take at least a decade, this is sure faster!

sounds like that movie with Cruise "Majority Opinion" about :precognitives"

oralloy wrote:

When you are confronted by facts, it is rather poor form for you to retreat to the use of ad hominem lies.

JESUS but youre delusional.

First you accusd Martin of "he could have been high"

Then , when confronted by a question for any facts you retreat to
"I said he was preparing to get high"

So in your fall back position, he was NIT HIGH?

And you are trying to mount a mound of truth and evidence?

Such statements wooulda been torn to shreds by a first year student in trial procedure.

Where in evidence did it say ANYWHERE that Martin was on drugs at the time of his murder by Zimmerman?

That's all IA skd for. I didn't need a whole series of serratim rebuts as "run and cover" when you cant supply the simple answer.

A simple "Im not sure about what I said" would have saved precious bytes.

I think oral got himself caught in a bit of prevarication, so in order to duck and cover, so he is calling me the liar.

(All I did was to question where he came up with the bold statement that Martin was high?)

Dex is an artificial coeine which is a form of methylmorphine.

SO a tox screen would pick up "Precursors" as indicators (Since the chemistry of one results in the same print on the GCMS as does the other), In other words, if you found methylmorphine or morphine, you had the makings of several "Illegal drugs" including Dex (or DXM as theyd list it in a tox screen)

Yet, there seems to be no real evidence (Pardon me if I dismiss your "He was potentially high at the time")whether MArtin was or was not a druggy.

that's why he must" live in a special world where clouds are blue and skies are white" (Bob Ross RIP)

Somehow Oralloy and Gunga want to argue that this tox screen couldn't detect other drugs that they seem to think Martin used or was actually on at the time of his death.

I guess I could make up a ridiculous reason to knock off a jewelry store and hope that I wouldn't be convicted, but it doesn't sound likely to work. Typically, making up a ridiculous reason to kill someone or to commit any crime doesn't help the perpetrator. The district attorney's office first has to agree that the killing was justifiable and not bring charges. This law merely allows people to defend themselves or others when they actually need to, and that's the way it's phrased. What's the alternative - people in grave danger have to fear the consequences of trying to preserve their lives?

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess I could make up a ridiculous reason to knock off a jewelry store and hope that I wouldn't be convicted, but it doesn't sound likely to work. Typically, making up a ridiculous reason to kill someone or to commit any crime doesn't help the perpetrator. The district attorney's office first has to agree that the killing was justifiable and not bring charges. This law merely allows people to defend themselves or others when they actually need to, and that's the way it's phrased. What's the alternative - people in grave danger have to fear the consequences of trying to preserve their lives?

It sounds reasonable to the fearful among us, but such laws tend to favor the shooter in actual practice, regardless of the true facts, as in Martin/Zimmerman.

It sounds reasonable to the fearful among us, but such laws tend to favor the shooter in actual practice, regardless of the true facts,