User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 211

  1. #111
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Nothing wrong with self defense [that'd be absurd] but I don't think the law really applies if you initiate the altercation yourself. And if it does, well, someone done goofed.
    It doesn't.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  2. #112
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Look at the facts from unbiased or opposing sources. There is no evidence to support the claim that he is racist.
    Being called a racist is not the same as being discriminated against because you're black. Not even close. You sound like Randy Marsh.

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full...-jesse-jackson
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #113
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Nothing wrong with self defense [that'd be absurd] but I don't think the law really applies if you initiate the altercation yourself. And if it does, well, someone done goofed.
    It doesn't.
    Florida Statutes Ch. 776 - Justifiable Use of Force

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— .... (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    It doesn't say anything about initiating the altercation.

    Like I've said before, that fact that Zimmerman was following Martin is not dispositive of anything.

    It has no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the get go. The only thing it indicates is that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin, and that (in Zimmerman's mind) this suspiciousness warranted his following Martin.

    Following Martin does not equal initiating the attack.

    If you are trying to get to the bottom of who started the fight, all you need to ask is who laid hands on the other first.

  4. #114
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It doesn't say anything about initiating the altercation.

    Like I've said before, that fact that Zimmerman was following Martin is not dispositive of anything.

    It has no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the get go. The only thing it indicates is that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin, and that (in Zimmerman's mind) this suspiciousness warranted his following Martin.

    Following Martin does not equal initiating the attack.

    If you are trying to get to the bottom of who started the fight, all you need to ask is who laid hands on the other first.
    I can't agree with this. Following and provoking a stranger, even if you didn't technically touch that person first, doesn't absolve you of responsibility, morally speaking. It may in a legal sense, but if it does that's just a bad law.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #115
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I can't agree with this. Following and provoking a stranger, even if you didn't technically touch that person first, doesn't absolve you of responsibility, morally speaking.
    Are you saying that by following Martin, Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified in escalating the situation with the use of physical force?

    If so I disagree completely.

    If someone following you is justification enough to fight them, what about when someone just happens to be taking the same route as you?

    If you are just placing moral guilt on Zimmerman, something which has no legal implications, for following Martin, then I guess I can kind of agree.

    It was not smart to continue following after the 911 call.

    But does that level of culpability (stemming from the argument that Zimmerman following Martin was a "but-for" cause of the altercation) mean that Zimmerman is therefore guilty of murdering Treyvon?

    Absolutely not.

    Treyvon had just as much ability to deescalate the situation as Zimmerman did prior to the altercation becoming physical.

    If Treyvon did physically attack Zimmerman, without any legal justification to do so, and in so doing made Zimmerman (and would make a reasonable man) fear for his life, there was no murder.

    It may in a legal sense, but if it does that's just a bad law.
    The law is bad, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

    The burden of proof should be on the defendant to show that the situation warranted the use of deadly force, not on the state to show that it didn't (the presumption being that the shooter is not justified until they/their counsel proves to the court that they were.)

  6. #116
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Are you saying that by following Martin, Zimmerman created a situation where Martin was justified in escalating the situation with the use of physical force?

    If so I disagree completely.

    If someone following you is justification enough to fight them, what about when someone just happens to be taking the same route as you?

    If you are just placing moral guilt on Zimmerman, something which has no legal implications, for following Martin, then I guess I can kind of agree.

    It was not smart to continue following after the 911 call.

    But does that level of culpability (stemming from the argument that Zimmerman following Martin was a "but-for" cause of the altercation) mean that Zimmerman is therefore guilty of murdering Treyvon?

    Absolutely not.

    Treyvon had just as much ability to deescalate the situation as Zimmerman did prior to the altercation becoming physical.

    If Treyvon did physically attack Zimmerman, without any legal justification to do so, and in so doing made Zimmerman (and would make a reasonable man) fear for his life, there was no murder.
    Nope, he wasn't justified. If Martin was still alive, I think they both should have probably been charged with assault. They're both responsible, Zimmerman for provoking, Martin for responding. But Martin is dead, so he can't really be punished.

    The law is bad, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

    The burden of proof should be on the defendant to show that the situation warranted the use of deadly force, not on the state to show that it didn't (the presumption being that the shooter is not justified until they/their counsel proves to the court that they were.)
    Good luck proving that in this case or any similar case where there are no witnesses to corroborate the killer's story.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #117
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If Martin was still alive, I think they both should have probably been charged with assault. They're both responsible, Zimmerman for provoking, Martin for responding.
    I (and I think the court) would disagree.

    If Martin was still alive (assuming no shooting occurred), and the evidence reflects that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman without any greater provocation than being followed, I think it would be an open and shut case of assault on the part of Martin.

    Certainly Zimmerman would get a strong talking to by the judge about his practices as a neighborhood watch participant, and the judge would probably recommend some sort of psychological counseling.

    But that's the way it works.

    The fact that Zimmerman's actions set the stage for the confrontation doesn't trump the fact that Martin initiated violence.

    I fear we've reached an impasse on this point, and will move on.

    Good luck proving that in this case or any similar case where there are no witnesses to corroborate the killer's story.
    There won't need to be, because the presumption will be that there was no justification for the shooting.

    Thus the onus will be on the shooter to prove that the shooting was justified.

    In this way the shooter in these cases isn't given the legal latitude they are under the current law.

    It's much harder to prove to the state that a shooting was justified, than it is to be able to sit back and defend against the state's accusation that it wasn't. Especially when there aren't any witnesses.

    This change in the law would act a disincentive to those who would use stand your ground as a license to kill.

    But the principle behind the law, that someone should be able to respond with deadly force if confronted with a deadly threat, is (in my humble opinion) sound.

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    The problem with claiming that following = mortally threatening, is that the assertion is not supported by common experience. People get followed all the time. Mortal conflict almost never ensues. Therefore, it is unreasonable assume that it will be the likely outcome.

  9. #119
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Florida Statutes Ch. 776 - Justifiable Use of Force

    It doesn't say anything about initiating the altercation.
    Then maybe it's a good idea to look up case law as well.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  10. #120
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Don't have access to west law or lexis nexus.

Similar Threads

  1. Game of Thrones / G.R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" (tv & book series)
    By nightwatcher in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 07:59 AM
  2. steve martin?
    By Lady_X in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 06:47 PM
  3. Villagers shoot down advertising balloon over country park
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-20-2008, 11:59 PM
  4. SHOOT TO KILL!
    By ByMySword in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 11:59 PM
  5. Iraq-Bound Soldier Hires Hitman To Shoot Him
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO