Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Florida, where murder is legal

Page 10 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 25  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 4:40 pm

simon_says wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Are you willful, or are you just stupid?

You just spent a whole bunch of time saying that not only is "stand your ground" wrong, but so is every other self-defense statute, because (as you claim) the surviving person can just make up whatever they want.

So, the logical conclusion is you think everyone who defends themselves should be thrown in jail, because they could have made up the whole thing.


You seem to skip around a lot. You say he's clearly not justified, and then say he's covered by self-defense if his personal account is true.

When I say that he might escape justice because of the law, you suggest I'm against all self defense shootings. Lost me there.


He's not justified because he instigated the situation, and had duty to retreat. He didn't retreat, and somehow ended up at blows with Trayvon - where he ended up on his back. At any time before that, he could have easily exercised his duty to retread, and left. He didn't.

His claim is that Trayvon attacked him from behind, and knocked him to the ground, and he was forced to defend himself. In *that* situation, he *is* justified in employing deadly force, but there are numerous holes in this story:

1) if he was *pursuing* Trayvon, how did Trayvon end up attacking him from *behind*

2) If Trayvon attacked him from behind, why are the grass stains on his back, and the injuries/blood on his chest/arms.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 4:45 pm

Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 4:50 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
simon_says wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Are you willful, or are you just stupid?

You just spent a whole bunch of time saying that not only is "stand your ground" wrong, but so is every other self-defense statute, because (as you claim) the surviving person can just make up whatever they want.

So, the logical conclusion is you think everyone who defends themselves should be thrown in jail, because they could have made up the whole thing.


You seem to skip around a lot. You say he's clearly not justified, and then say he's covered by self-defense if his personal account is true.

When I say that he might escape justice because of the law, you suggest I'm against all self defense shootings. Lost me there.


He's not justified because he instigated the situation, and had duty to retreat. He didn't retreat, and somehow ended up at blows with Trayvon - where he ended up on his back. At any time before that, he could have easily exercised his duty to retread, and left. He didn't.

His claim is that Trayvon attacked him from behind, and knocked him to the ground, and he was forced to defend himself. In *that* situation, he *is* justified in employing deadly force, but there are numerous holes in this story:

1) if he was *pursuing* Trayvon, how did Trayvon end up attacking him from *behind*

2) If Trayvon attacked him from behind, why are the grass stains on his back, and the injuries/blood on his chest/arms.



We don't know his story yet. Just snippets. But the police couldnt put enough holes in it to charge him yet. That's because there are no witnesses to what lead up to the struggle. So it's Zimmerman's word supported by that bar to prosecution. Better for Martin all around if he'd killed Zimmerman in that backyard and claimed SYG himself.

No, it doesnt make sense that he was "heading back to his truck" when jumped and yet he kills the kid in someone's backyard. But I don't know how he claims to have wound up there yet.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 4:53 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.


There are very specific legal definitions for "reasonable" and "great bodily harm". Application of the law is about both the statutory law (what is written) AND case law, INCLUDING precedent set by prior courts.

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


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 4:58 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.


There are very specific legal definitions for "reasonable" and "great bodily harm". Application of the law is about both the statutory law (what is written) AND case law, INCLUDING precedent set by prior courts.

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


You are confusing words and math. There is always latitude with words. There was a 14 yo in Florida that killed a school bully with a knife over a punch. He was protected by SYG. Is all school yard fighting now a killing offense? Probably not, but the law won't be applied evenly because it's not calculus.



Last edited by simon_says on 25 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2012, 4:59 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.
How convenient, instead of specifically addressing my clarification of one of the terms that constitute the exceptions, you would rather distract the issue with some condescending BS.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 5:05 pm

simon_says wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.


There are very specific legal definitions for "reasonable" and "great bodily harm". Application of the law is about both the statutory law (what is written) AND case law, INCLUDING precedent set by prior courts.

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


You are confusing words and math. There is always latitude with words. There was a 14 yo in Florida that killed a school bully with a knife over a punch. He was protected by SYG. Is all school yard fighting now a killing offense? Probably not, but the law won't be applied evenly because it's not calculus.


You are confusing the *english* definition of a term with it's *legal* definition. We are dealing in matters of law. Leave your Oxford English Dictionary at home.

Again I ask: are you willful, or are you just stupid?


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 5:06 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.
How convenient, instead of specifically addressing my clarification of one of the terms that constitute the exceptions, you would rather distract the issue with some condescending BS.


I'm arguing a side point. That you can provoke a confrontation and still use deadly force. That's all.

As to your point, different prosecutors, judges and juries will have their own ideas about what constitutes an imminent threat. If it was math, we wouldnt need juries, just a computer program. But that has nothing to do with my original point.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 5:08 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
simon_says wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.


There are very specific legal definitions for "reasonable" and "great bodily harm". Application of the law is about both the statutory law (what is written) AND case law, INCLUDING precedent set by prior courts.

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


You are confusing words and math. There is always latitude with words. There was a 14 yo in Florida that killed a school bully with a knife over a punch. He was protected by SYG. Is all school yard fighting now a killing offense? Probably not, but the law won't be applied evenly because it's not calculus.


You are confusing the *english* definition of a term with it's *legal* definition. We are dealing in matters of law. Leave your Oxford English Dictionary at home.

Again I ask: are you willful, or are you just stupid?


Sounds like you are having some issues.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2012, 5:18 pm

simon_says wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.
How convenient, instead of specifically addressing my clarification of one of the terms that constitute the exceptions, you would rather distract the issue with some condescending BS.


I'm arguing a side point. That you can provoke a confrontation and still use deadly force. That's all.
My ass, more like you were arguing against a point that I made and misrepresented it. Why was that "side point" even worth mentioning when I never even argued against the fact that there are exceptions? I obviously wasn't arguing about whether or not there are exceptions, I was talking about how the exceptions are specific and don't give nearly as much room to BS with vagueness as you make it out to be.

simon_says wrote:
As to your point, different prosecutors, judges and juries will have their own ideas about what constitutes an imminent threat. If it was math, we wouldnt need juries, just a computer program. But that has nothing to do with my original point.
Sure they will have their own ideas, but specific definitions leave a lot less room for arbitrary bullshitting than vague definitions. How is "imminent threat" vague enough to be bent way out of shape?



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

25 Mar 2012, 5:37 pm

Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.

HANG HIM HIGH!



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 5:57 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
simon_says wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?


It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.
How convenient, instead of specifically addressing my clarification of one of the terms that constitute the exceptions, you would rather distract the issue with some condescending BS.


I'm arguing a side point. That you can provoke a confrontation and still use deadly force. That's all.
My ass, more like you were arguing against a point that I made and misrepresented it. Why was that "side point" even worth mentioning when I never even argued against the fact that there are exceptions? I obviously wasn't arguing about whether or not there are exceptions, I was talking about how the exceptions are specific and don't give nearly as much room to BS with vagueness as you make it out to be.

simon_says wrote:
As to your point, different prosecutors, judges and juries will have their own ideas about what constitutes an imminent threat. If it was math, we wouldnt need juries, just a computer program. But that has nothing to do with my original point.
Sure they will have their own ideas, but specific definitions leave a lot less room for arbitrary bullshitting than vague definitions. How is "imminent threat" vague enough to be bent way out of shape?


You responded to my point to another poster. Not vice versa. This SYG law does include an exemption for someone who provkes a fight. That's clear. Does Zimmerman qualify for the examption? I can't be sure but his lawyer could argue it. His lawyer appears to be avoiding SYG as much as possible.

As for imminent threat: Some take a punch or advance forward as good enough for a kill. In other cases you might go to prison. Obviously outcomes vary. A man got away with kiling his drunk neighbor who mistakenly tried to open his front door. He went outside with a gun and the neighbor asked for a match and "advanced forward". That was ruled self defense under SYG. Or I should say, he wasnt charged.



Last edited by simon_says on 25 Mar 2012, 6:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.

HANG HIM HIGH!


You're making wild presumptions. I very firmly believe that Mr. Zimmerman was not evil or "out for blood". This boils down to a tragic mistake where level heads should have prevailed.

Mr. Zimmerman accepted the responsibility for protecting himself and others when he decided to get a concealed weapons permit and carry his weapon. I applaud that decision, and I wish more people would do the same. However, when you take that responsibility - the burden falls to *you* to be the level-headed one. If you are unable, or unwilling to accept that responsibility - don't carry. I feel very confidently that Mr. Zimmerman will be charged, tried, and convicted.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Mar 2012, 6:04 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.

HANG HIM HIGH!


You're making wild presumptions. I very firmly believe that Mr. Zimmerman was not evil or "out for blood". This boils down to a tragic mistake where level heads should have prevailed.

Mr. Zimmerman accepted the responsibility for protecting himself and others when he decided to get a concealed weapons permit and carry his weapon. I applaud that decision, and I wish more people would do the same. However, when you take that responsibility - the burden falls to *you* to be the level-headed one. If you are unable, or unwilling to accept that responsibility - don't carry. I feel very confidently that Mr. Zimmerman will be charged, tried, and convicted.

If you are wrong, and he is either not charged or is acquitted, I charge you with renewing this thread and opening the discussion with everyone's POVs changed by the new data.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 6:05 pm

LKL wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.

HANG HIM HIGH!


You're making wild presumptions. I very firmly believe that Mr. Zimmerman was not evil or "out for blood". This boils down to a tragic mistake where level heads should have prevailed.

Mr. Zimmerman accepted the responsibility for protecting himself and others when he decided to get a concealed weapons permit and carry his weapon. I applaud that decision, and I wish more people would do the same. However, when you take that responsibility - the burden falls to *you* to be the level-headed one. If you are unable, or unwilling to accept that responsibility - don't carry. I feel very confidently that Mr. Zimmerman will be charged, tried, and convicted.

If you are wrong, and he is either not charged or is acquitted, I charge you with renewing this thread and opening the discussion with everyone's POVs changed by the new data.


Freely and gladly.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

25 Mar 2012, 6:12 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.


This isn't going to win me any friends, but I agree with you here.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.