Board 8 > Trayvon Martin has NOTHING to do with the "stand your ground" doctrine [dwmf]

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 6:30:00 PM #1:	http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/2012/03/23/trayvon-martin-has-nothing-to-do-with-stand-your-ground-clauses/ Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the failure of Florida’s “stand your ground” doctrine. (Note: I said “doctrine” and not “law.” Referring to it as a law implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. Stand your ground is a doctrine in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on homicide will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from deadly force WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin. This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use deadly force, nor make any threats of deadly force, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, stand your ground does not apply to this case. At all. Stand your ground is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with deadly force, THEN you can respond in kind, even in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with deadly force. Therefore, the issue of whether he is allowed to “stand his ground” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is not relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted deadly force, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with deadly force. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they shoot somebody, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a gun whatsoever was a gun. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting firearm availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “stand your ground” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded. The right to defend one’s self against threats of deadly force is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having a “stand your ground” doctrine embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it. References: This CS Monitor piece links the case and “stand your ground” right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans at work. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trial Wikipedia clarifies exactly what the stand your ground doctrine entails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942748] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/2012/03/23/trayvon-martin-has-nothing-to-do-with-stand-your-ground-clauses/Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the failure of Florida’s “stand your ground” doctrine. (Note: I said “doctrine” and not “law.” Referring to it as a law implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. Stand your ground is a doctrine in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on homicide will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from deadly force WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin.This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use deadly force, nor make any threats of deadly force, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, stand your ground does not apply to this case. At all.Stand your ground is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with deadly force, THEN you can respond in kind, even in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with deadly force. Therefore, the issue of whether he is allowed to “stand his ground” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is not relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted deadly force, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with deadly force. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they shoot somebody, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a gun whatsoever was a gun. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting firearm availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “stand your ground” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded.The right to defend one’s self against threats of deadly force is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having a “stand your ground” doctrine embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it.References:This CS Monitor piece links the case and “stand your ground” right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans at work.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trialWikipedia clarifies exactly what the stand your ground doctrine entails.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DeepsPraw 03/23/12 6:32:00 PM #2:	ok -- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg <cite>DeepsPraw posted [p:942749] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> ok -- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the doghttp://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/23/12 6:40:00 PM #3:	Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway. Not sure what more you are saying. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942750] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway.Not sure what more you are saying. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/23/12 6:42:00 PM #4:	He's saying that people are using this incident to condemn Stand Your Ground, which is dumb -- _foolmo_ 'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:942751] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> He's saying that people are using this incident to condemn Stand Your Ground, which is dumb -- _foolmo_'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 6:50:00 PM #5:	From: red sox 777 \| #003 Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway. Not sure what more you are saying. Look at the headline of the CS Monitor story I linked. It's just one of many. The media is claiming that stand your ground is the cause of this incident when it obviously is a completely unrelated deal. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942752] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: red sox 777 \| #003Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway.Not sure what more you are saying.Look at the headline of the CS Monitor story I linked. It's just one of many. The media is claiming that stand your ground is the cause of this incident when it obviously is a completely unrelated deal. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DSAutoResponder 03/23/12 6:54:00 PM #6:	*red sox 777 posted...* Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway. <cite>DSAutoResponder posted [p:942753] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> red sox 777 posted...Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paperwarior 03/23/12 6:54:00 PM #7:	The cause of the incident is a trigger-happy, possibly racist individual. But if he does get off due to "Stand Your Ground" that will be quite an injustice. -- Now playing: Screw it, MORTAL KOMBAT! <cite>paperwarior posted [p:942754] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> The cause of the incident is a trigger-happy, possibly racist individual. But if he does get off due to "Stand Your Ground" that will be quite an injustice. -- Now playing: Screw it, MORTAL KOMBAT! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OliviaTremor 03/23/12 6:57:00 PM #8:	http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the success of Florida’s “all public doors must face outward” law. (Note: I said “law” and not “doctrine.” Referring to it as a doctrine implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. All public doors must face outward is a law in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on all public doors facing outwards will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the necessity to have their public doors facing outward from the interior of the building WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the non-killing of Trayvon Martin. This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use an outward facing door, nor make any threats of using an outward facing door, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, all public doors must face outwards does not apply to this case. At all. All public doors must be facing outwards is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with inward facing door, THEN you can respond in kind, especially in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with an inward facing public door. Therefore, the issue of whether he is required to “use an outward facing public door” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is especially relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted with an inward facing public door, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with an inward facing public door. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they confront suspicious people constructing public outdoor facing doors, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a outward facing public door whatsoever was an inward facing public door door. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting door availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “all public doors must be facing outward” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded. The right to defend one’s self against threats of an inward facing door is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having an “all public doors must be facing outward” law embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it. References: This CNN piece links the case and “All public doors must be facing outwards” not right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans finely at work. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trial The Florida Senate clarifies exactly what the all public doors must be facing outwards law entails. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/823.06 -- Notyou <cite>OliviaTremor posted [p:942755] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the success of Florida’s “all public doors must face outward” law. (Note: I said “law” and not “doctrine.” Referring to it as a doctrine implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. All public doors must face outward is a law in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on all public doors facing outwards will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the necessity to have their public doors facing outward from the interior of the building WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the non-killing of Trayvon Martin.This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use an outward facing door, nor make any threats of using an outward facing door, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, all public doors must face outwards does not apply to this case. At all.All public doors must be facing outwards is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with inward facing door, THEN you can respond in kind, especially in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with an inward facing public door. Therefore, the issue of whether he is required to “use an outward facing public door” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is especially relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted with an inward facing public door, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with an inward facing public door. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they confront suspicious people constructing public outdoor facing doors, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a outward facing public door whatsoever was an inward facing public door door. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting door availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “all public doors must be facing outward” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded.The right to defend one’s self against threats of an inward facing door is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having an “all public doors must be facing outward” law embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it.References:This CNN piece links the case and “All public doors must be facing outwards” not right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans finely at work.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trialThe Florida Senate clarifies exactly what the all public doors must be facing outwards law entails.http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/823.06 -- Notyou </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:03:00 PM #9:	From: paperwarior \| #007 The cause of the incident is a trigger-happy, possibly racist individual. But if he does get off due to "Stand Your Ground" that will be quite an injustice. If he got off due to stand your ground, it would mean that the jury decided that he was confronted with deadly force and therefore entitled to respond in kind. If that is the truth of the matter, then there is no injustice here, and everything happened exactly as it should have. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942756] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: paperwarior \| #007The cause of the incident is a trigger-happy, possibly racist individual. But if he does get off due to "Stand Your Ground" that will be quite an injustice.If he got off due to stand your ground, it would mean that the jury decided that he was confronted with deadly force and therefore entitled to respond in kind. If that is the truth of the matter, then there is no injustice here, and everything happened exactly as it should have. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 03/23/12 7:10:00 PM #10:	I'd say it has more than "nothing" to do with it. You're correct in the sense that he probably wasn't defending himself and therefore it won't end up helping him. But. The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:942757] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> I'd say it has more than "nothing" to do with it. You're correct in the sense that he probably wasn't defending himself and therefore it won't end up helping him.But.The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/23/12 7:15:00 PM #11:	From: Leebo86 \| #010 The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". Nah, he wasn't arrested because the police didn't want to arrest him. Whether the excuse was Stand Your Ground, or any other law they could've pulled out of their ass, it doesn't matter at all. -- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:942758] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: Leebo86 \| #010The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked".Nah, he wasn't arrested because the police didn't want to arrest him. Whether the excuse was Stand Your Ground, or any other law they could've pulled out of their ass, it doesn't matter at all. -- _foolmo_'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:19:00 PM #12:	The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". Right, but the question is "does self defense even apply in this situation" THAT is the question that has to be answered and it has nothing to do with stand your ground. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942759] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked".Right, but the question is "does self defense even apply in this situation"THAT is the question that has to be answered and it has nothing to do with stand your ground. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 03/23/12 7:22:00 PM #13:	If the police weren't saying that stand your ground tied their hands then we wouldn't be talking about it. Yes, it will end up getting sorted out correctly, and he won't get the benefit of stand your ground, but it's still tangentially related to the situation. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:942760] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> If the police weren't saying that stand your ground tied their hands then we wouldn't be talking about it.Yes, it will end up getting sorted out correctly, and he won't get the benefit of stand your ground, but it's still tangentially related to the situation. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:23:00 PM #14:	If the police weren't saying that stand your ground tied their hands then we wouldn't be talking about it. Then those police are lying in an attempt to cover their own asses. The media is acting as if the stand your ground law means "you can kill whoever you want for no reason" or something. It doesn't. All it means is that IF you are confronted with deadly force, you can respond in kind, wherever you are. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942761] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> If the police weren't saying that stand your ground tied their hands then we wouldn't be talking about it.Then those police are lying in an attempt to cover their own asses.The media is acting as if the stand your ground law means "you can kill whoever you want for no reason" or something. It doesn't. All it means is that IF you are confronted with deadly force, you can respond in kind, wherever you are. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 03/23/12 7:26:00 PM #15:	Every time I've seen coverage of the story in the last 2 days, someone has mentioned that one of the co-sponsors said that stand your ground doesn't apply because Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. So yeah, the police are covering their asses and intentionally causing confusion about it, and it will eventually get sorted out. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:942762] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Every time I've seen coverage of the story in the last 2 days, someone has mentioned that one of the co-sponsors said that stand your ground doesn't apply because Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. So yeah, the police are covering their asses and intentionally causing confusion about it, and it will eventually get sorted out. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/23/12 7:28:00 PM #16:	From: Leebo86 \| #015 and it will eventually get forgotten about because America has a very short attention span, and only the grieving family will be left caring about the injustice. pretty much -- _foolmo_ 'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:942763] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: Leebo86 \| #015and it will eventually get forgotten about because America has a very short attention span, and only the grieving family will be left caring about the injustice.pretty much -- _foolmo_'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Uglyface2 03/23/12 7:29:00 PM #17:	*Leebo86 posted...* The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". Not quite. From what I've heard, they did interrogate him for five hours. Why he wasn't arrested is anybody's guess. <cite>Uglyface2 posted [p:942764] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Leebo86 posted...The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked".Not quite. From what I've heard, they did interrogate him for five hours. Why he wasn't arrested is anybody's guess. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:41:00 PM #18:	Not quite. From what I've heard, they did interrogate him for five hours. Why he wasn't arrested is anybody's guess. Well, here's what I'll concede. The existence of stand your ground puts the burden of proof squarely on the officers. As I said, Zimmerman can plead the same defense that police officers do whenever they shoot anyone, which is "I thought he was pulling a gun on me, turned out to be skittles but I didn't know that at the time." Whereas, in states that have a clearly established "duty to flee" precedent, that defense would only be valid if Zimmerman was unable to flee. In that case, the burden of proof is more on him to prove that fleeing was not a viable option. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942765] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Not quite. From what I've heard, they did interrogate him for five hours. Why he wasn't arrested is anybody's guess.Well, here's what I'll concede. The existence of stand your ground puts the burden of proof squarely on the officers. As I said, Zimmerman can plead the same defense that police officers do whenever they shoot anyone, which is "I thought he was pulling a gun on me, turned out to be skittles but I didn't know that at the time."Whereas, in states that have a clearly established "duty to flee" precedent, that defense would only be valid if Zimmerman was unable to flee. In that case, the burden of proof is more on him to prove that fleeing was not a viable option. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:42:00 PM #19:	So to answer your question, presumably the officers did not arrest him because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence that Zimmerman was lying about his "I thought the guy had a gun" defense. There is seemingly zero motive in this case, aside from the whole "racism" conclusion that absolutely everyone is jumping to. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942766] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> So to answer your question, presumably the officers did not arrest him because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence that Zimmerman was lying about his "I thought the guy had a gun" defense. There is seemingly zero motive in this case, aside from the whole "racism" conclusion that absolutely everyone is jumping to. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/23/12 7:47:00 PM #20:	From: Leebo86 \| #020 The co-sponsor I was talking about made it sound like even if Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun or something he couldn't use stand your ground, because he went out of his way to confront Martin rather than Martin approaching him. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I don't think it's inherent to the stand your ground doctrine. In any case, Zimmerman can't use "stand your ground," he can only use "self defense." In which case he has to explain to a jury why he pursued the guy in the first place, which would SEEM to be a hard argument to make. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942767] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: Leebo86 \| #020The co-sponsor I was talking about made it sound like even if Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun or something he couldn't use stand your ground, because he went out of his way to confront Martin rather than Martin approaching him.I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I don't think it's inherent to the stand your ground doctrine. In any case, Zimmerman can't use "stand your ground," he can only use "self defense." In which case he has to explain to a jury why he pursued the guy in the first place, which would SEEM to be a hard argument to make. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 03/23/12 7:47:00 PM #21:	The co-sponsor I was talking about made it sound like even if Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun or something he couldn't use stand your ground, because he went out of his way to confront Martin rather than Martin approaching him. Keeping in mind that Zimmerman had already called 911 about Martin, suggesting that he should have known violence was possible if he confronted someone he thought was worth calling the police about. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:942768] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> The co-sponsor I was talking about made it sound like even if Zimmerman thought Martin had a gun or something he couldn't use stand your ground, because he went out of his way to confront Martin rather than Martin approaching him.Keeping in mind that Zimmerman had already called 911 about Martin, suggesting that he should have known violence was possible if he confronted someone he thought was worth calling the police about. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/24/12 12:07:00 AM #22:	Zimmerman is the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything to a jury. The prosecution has to show that he was not acting in self-defense. If people are worried about juries misapplying the stand your ground law, perhaps that's a reasonable worry. As this is a criminal case instead of a civil case, the judge cannot overrule the jury by saying, "nope, you guys must have misunderstood the law." Whatever the jury says goes, even if the jury decides, "we don't care what the law is, we're acquitting because he's white and the other guy was black." -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942769] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Zimmerman is the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything to a jury. The prosecution has to show that he was not acting in self-defense.If people are worried about juries misapplying the stand your ground law, perhaps that's a reasonable worry. As this is a criminal case instead of a civil case, the judge cannot overrule the jury by saying, "nope, you guys must have misunderstood the law." Whatever the jury says goes, even if the jury decides, "we don't care what the law is, we're acquitting because he's white and the other guy was black." -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/24/12 12:19:00 AM #23:	Well, here's what I'll concede. The existence of stand your ground puts the burden of proof squarely on the officers. As I said, Zimmerman can plead the same defense that police officers do whenever they shoot anyone, which is "I thought he was pulling a gun on me, turned out to be skittles but I didn't know that at the time." Except he's not a police officer, so that won't go well for him unless his case is a lot stronger than a police officer would need to win. The legal standard is different too, even with stand your ground. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942770] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Well, here's what I'll concede. The existence of stand your ground puts the burden of proof squarely on the officers. As I said, Zimmerman can plead the same defense that police officers do whenever they shoot anyone, which is "I thought he was pulling a gun on me, turned out to be skittles but I didn't know that at the time."Except he's not a police officer, so that won't go well for him unless his case is a lot stronger than a police officer would need to win. The legal standard is different too, even with stand your ground. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rad Link 5 03/24/12 1:16:00 AM #24:	Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the failure of Florida’s “stand your ground” doctrine. (Note: I said “doctrine” and not “law.” Referring to it as a law implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. Stand your ground is a doctrine in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on homicide will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from deadly force WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin. This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use deadly force, nor make any threats of deadly force, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, stand your ground does not apply to this case. At all. Stand your ground is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with deadly force, THEN you can respond in kind, even in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with deadly force. Therefore, the issue of whether he is allowed to “stand his ground” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is not relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted deadly force, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with deadly force. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they shoot somebody, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a gun whatsoever was a gun. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting firearm availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “stand your ground” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded. The right to defend one’s self against threats of deadly force is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having a “stand your ground” doctrine embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it. -- Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police http://i52.tinypic.com/5206qe.gif <cite>Rad Link 5 posted [p:942771] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the failure of Florida’s “stand your ground” doctrine. (Note: I said “doctrine” and not “law.” Referring to it as a law implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. Stand your ground is a doctrine in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on homicide will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from deadly force WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin.This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use deadly force, nor make any threats of deadly force, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, stand your ground does not apply to this case. At all.Stand your ground is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with deadly force, THEN you can respond in kind, even in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with deadly force. Therefore, the issue of whether he is allowed to “stand his ground” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is not relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted deadly force, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with deadly force. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they shoot somebody, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a gun whatsoever was a gun. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting firearm availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “stand your ground” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded.The right to defend one’s self against threats of deadly force is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having a “stand your ground” doctrine embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it. -- Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Policehttp://i52.tinypic.com/5206qe.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Westbrick 03/24/12 1:20:00 AM #25:	The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked". Nah, he wasn't arrested because the police didn't want to arrest him. Whether the excuse was Stand Your Ground, or any other law they could've pulled out of their ass, it doesn't matter at all. ...Wait, what? The police need a reason not to arrest someone who's shot someone else. The fact that it was allegedly self-defense according to this particular doctrine is entirely relevant. Anyway, good post SMuffin. -- Tebow to Jests? http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png <cite>Westbrick posted [p:942772] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because he said "hey guys I defended myself" and they said "ok you can go no questions asked".Nah, he wasn't arrested because the police didn't want to arrest him. Whether the excuse was Stand Your Ground, or any other law they could've pulled out of their ass, it doesn't matter at all....Wait, what? The police need a reason not to arrest someone who's shot someone else. The fact that it was allegedly self-defense according to this particular doctrine is entirely relevant.Anyway, good post SMuffin. -- Tebow to Jests?http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#26	Post #26 was unavailable or deleted.
Rad Link 5 03/24/12 1:33:00 AM #27:	Some college football player who got caught accepting money I think. -- Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police I assure you, my dear, all Ace Detectives are perfect gentlemen! <cite>Rad Link 5 posted [p:942774] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Some college football player who got caught accepting money I think. -- Ace Detective in Sir Chris' PoliceI assure you, my dear, all Ace Detectives are perfect gentlemen! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
redrocket 03/24/12 1:34:00 AM #28:	Actually he's a married senator from Maine who got caught having a gay affair. -- From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch <cite>redrocket posted [p:942775] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Actually he's a married senator from Maine who got caught having a gay affair. -- From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OmarsComin 03/24/12 5:38:00 AM #29:	actually he's a TSA worker who came up with the idea of full body scans f*ing called it -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHDxSvwCE0 <cite>OmarsComin posted [p:942776] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> actually he's a TSA worker who came up with the idea of full body scansf***ing called it -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHDxSvwCE0 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DigitalIncision 03/24/12 5:52:00 AM #30:	Well it has plenty to do with Trayvon Martin, because that's what people are saying. From: Westbrick \| #025 ...Wait, what? The police need a reason not to arrest someone who's shot someone else If the system worked, sure. -- Digi I plan on being more spontaneous in the future. <cite>DigitalIncision posted [p:942777] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Well it has plenty to do with Trayvon Martin, because that's what people are saying.From: Westbrick \| #025...Wait, what? The police need a reason not to arrest someone who's shot someone elseIf the system worked, sure. -- Digi I plan on being more spontaneous in the future. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/24/12 6:15:00 AM #31:	Zimmerman is the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything to a jury. The prosecution has to show that he was not acting in self-defense. Right. Innocent until proven guilty exists IN THEORY. Although IF this thing goes to trial, it means the police have already collected enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion that murder happened. It'd be tough for Zimmerman, given some basic facts of the case that are not in dispute, even from his side. That he shot an unarmed man, and that he pursued after being told by the dispatcher to not pursue. If people are worried about juries misapplying the stand your ground law, perhaps that's a reasonable worry. As this is a criminal case instead of a civil case, the judge cannot overrule the jury by saying, "nope, you guys must have misunderstood the law." Whatever the jury says goes, even if the jury decides, "we don't care what the law is, we're acquitting because he's white and the other guy was black." I'd be more worried about the reverse, actually. That the jury would convict him despite the case not being fully proven. With the media circus this has become, I doubt this guy can get a fair trial ANYWHERE at this point. Well it has plenty to do with Trayvon Martin, because that's what people are saying. They're saying it BECAUSE that's the narrative the media is shoving down their throats. The media has just DECIDED that this case is about gun laws, so everyone just goes along with it, despite it not making any sense whatsoever. Just like how the Gabby Giffords incident was "about" conservative talk radio despite absolutely zero evidence of that. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942778] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Zimmerman is the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything to a jury. The prosecution has to show that he was not acting in self-defense.Right. Innocent until proven guilty exists IN THEORY. Although IF this thing goes to trial, it means the police have already collected enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion that murder happened. It'd be tough for Zimmerman, given some basic facts of the case that are not in dispute, even from his side. That he shot an unarmed man, and that he pursued after being told by the dispatcher to not pursue.If people are worried about juries misapplying the stand your ground law, perhaps that's a reasonable worry. As this is a criminal case instead of a civil case, the judge cannot overrule the jury by saying, "nope, you guys must have misunderstood the law." Whatever the jury says goes, even if the jury decides, "we don't care what the law is, we're acquitting because he's white and the other guy was black."I'd be more worried about the reverse, actually. That the jury would convict him despite the case not being fully proven. With the media circus this has become, I doubt this guy can get a fair trial ANYWHERE at this point.Well it has plenty to do with Trayvon Martin, because that's what people are saying.They're saying it BECAUSE that's the narrative the media is shoving down their throats. The media has just DECIDED that this case is about gun laws, so everyone just goes along with it, despite it not making any sense whatsoever. Just like how the Gabby Giffords incident was "about" conservative talk radio despite absolutely zero evidence of that. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Liquid Wind 03/24/12 6:21:00 AM #32:	this was the guy that got murdered for being a black guy walking down the street with skittles right defendant is white so he'll probably get away with it, woo american 'justice' system. it's hilarious how the police didn't even want to charge him... <cite>Liquid Wind posted [p:942779] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> this was the guy that got murdered for being a black guy walking down the street with skittles rightdefendant is white so he'll probably get away with it, woo american 'justice' system. it's hilarious how the police didn't even want to charge him... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/24/12 6:23:00 AM #33:	actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning that it destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidence -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942780] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning thatit destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidence -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Westbrick 03/24/12 6:26:00 AM #34:	They're saying it BECAUSE that's the narrative the media is shoving down their throats. The media has just DECIDED that this case is about gun laws, so everyone just goes along with it, despite it not making any sense whatsoever. Just like how the Gabby Giffords incident was "about" conservative talk radio despite absolutely zero evidence of that. I'm pretty sure this case is equally about race as it is about gun laws. Yes, the dude's hispanic, but the public perception is that a black guy got killed just because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Fair or not, that's how people are going to see it. -- Tebow to Jests? http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png <cite>Westbrick posted [p:942781] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> They're saying it BECAUSE that's the narrative the media is shoving down their throats. The media has just DECIDED that this case is about gun laws, so everyone just goes along with it, despite it not making any sense whatsoever. Just like how the Gabby Giffords incident was "about" conservative talk radio despite absolutely zero evidence of that.I'm pretty sure this case is equally about race as it is about gun laws. Yes, the dude's hispanic, but the public perception is that a black guy got killed just because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Fair or not, that's how people are going to see it. -- Tebow to Jests?http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Liquid Wind 03/24/12 6:31:00 AM #35:	actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning that wasn't aware, I only read about this much when it first happened and I didn't recall anything like that. I'm pretty sure this case is equally about race as it is about gun laws. Yes, the dude's hispanic, but the public perception is that a black guy got killed just because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Fair or not, that's how people are going to see it. people will always look for a motive and here we have someone who was unarmed, so self defense isn't a reasonable excuse, and presumably had no prior relationship to the killer <cite>Liquid Wind posted [p:942782] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning thatwasn't aware, I only read about this much when it first happened and I didn't recall anything like that.I'm pretty sure this case is equally about race as it is about gun laws. Yes, the dude's hispanic, but the public perception is that a black guy got killed just because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Fair or not, that's how people are going to see it.people will always look for a motive and here we have someone who was unarmed, so self defense isn't a reasonable excuse, and presumably had no prior relationship to the killer </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 03/24/12 6:32:00 AM #36:	From: SmartMuffin \| #033 it destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidence You keep saying that, but he called Martin a f*ing c* on one of the 911 calls >_> -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:942783] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: SmartMuffin \| #033it destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidenceYou keep saying that, but he called Martin a f*ing c* on one of the 911 calls >_> -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OmarsComin 03/24/12 6:46:00 AM #37:	what, mexicans can be racist too? who knew, I thought it was a white people only problem -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHDxSvwCE0 <cite>OmarsComin posted [p:942784] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> what, mexicans can be racist too?who knew, I thought it was a white people only problem -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHDxSvwCE0 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlecTrevelyan006 03/24/12 6:49:00 AM #38:	From: OmarsComin \| #037 what, mexicans can be racist too? who knew, I thought it was a white people only problem First they take our jobs, then our racism... what next, Mexico? -- http://img.imgcake.com/drakeryn/alecjpguz.jpg http://img.imgcake.com/drakeryn/alecjpgja.jpg <cite>AlecTrevelyan006 posted [p:942785] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: OmarsComin \| #037what, mexicans can be racist too?who knew, I thought it was a white people only problemFirst they take our jobs, then our racism... what next, Mexico? -- http://img.imgcake.com/drakeryn/alecjpguz.jpghttp://img.imgcake.com/drakeryn/alecjpgja.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/24/12 7:18:00 AM #39:	Right. Innocent until proven guilty exists IN THEORY. Although IF this thing goes to trial, it means the police have already collected enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion that murder happened. It'd be tough for Zimmerman, given some basic facts of the case that are not in dispute, even from his side. That he shot an unarmed man, and that he pursued after being told by the dispatcher to not pursue. If it goes to trial, it means the two sides were not able to reach a settlement. As this is a criminal case, the only possible realistic settlement is a plea bargain. If one is not reached, it could be because either there isn't that much evidence so Zimmerman turns down the plea bargain thinking he can win, or there is a lot and the prosecution refuses to compromise. Probably more likely the former IMO, because the prosecution isn't risking being executed here. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942786] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Right. Innocent until proven guilty exists IN THEORY. Although IF this thing goes to trial, it means the police have already collected enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion that murder happened. It'd be tough for Zimmerman, given some basic facts of the case that are not in dispute, even from his side. That he shot an unarmed man, and that he pursued after being told by the dispatcher to not pursue.If it goes to trial, it means the two sides were not able to reach a settlement. As this is a criminal case, the only possible realistic settlement is a plea bargain. If one is not reached, it could be because either there isn't that much evidence so Zimmerman turns down the plea bargain thinking he can win, or there is a lot and the prosecution refuses to compromise. Probably more likely the former IMO, because the prosecution isn't risking being executed here. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/24/12 7:21:00 AM #40:	I'm not sure how being Hispanic changes anything. It's still one race and another. Besides, Hispanics (at least the ones with full-blooded or close enough parentage in Spain/Portugal) have been regarded as white for centuries, until very recently. Try telling Hernan Cortez that he's not white. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942787] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> I'm not sure how being Hispanic changes anything. It's still one race and another. Besides, Hispanics (at least the ones with full-blooded or close enough parentage in Spain/Portugal) have been regarded as white for centuries, until very recently. Try telling Hernan Cortez that he's not white. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/24/12 8:01:00 AM #41:	I'd be more worried about the reverse, actually. That the jury would convict him despite the case not being fully proven. With the media circus this has become, I doubt this guy can get a fair trial ANYWHERE at this point. There's something like 20 million people in Florida, I'm sure they can get a jury to hear the case. Casey Anthony won her case after a media firestorm after all. And yeah, juries convicting too easily is a major problem in the US. By the way, I don't think it's enough for a defense legally even if Zimmerman honestly believed Trayvon was about to pull a gun on him. The belief has to be reasonable too. It'd be really hard or impossible for the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's subjective beliefs, but it is far easier to show that that belief was unreasonable. There was a case back in the 80s, where a white man shot 4 black teens on the NYC subway and later claimed self-defense. The jury acquitted, much to the despair of many people who said the jury was reasoning, "it is reasonable to expect that a black man on the subway will attack you." The defendant's case there was stronger because he was not the one to initiate contact, however. Also, doctrine is law. Law is statutes + precedent. Doesn't need to imply any illegal action. For example, is the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) law? -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942788] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> I'd be more worried about the reverse, actually. That the jury would convict him despite the case not being fully proven. With the media circus this has become, I doubt this guy can get a fair trial ANYWHERE at this point.There's something like 20 million people in Florida, I'm sure they can get a jury to hear the case. Casey Anthony won her case after a media firestorm after all. And yeah, juries convicting too easily is a major problem in the US.By the way, I don't think it's enough for a defense legally even if Zimmerman honestly believed Trayvon was about to pull a gun on him. The belief has to be reasonable too. It'd be really hard or impossible for the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's subjective beliefs, but it is far easier to show that that belief was unreasonable.There was a case back in the 80s, where a white man shot 4 black teens on the NYC subway and later claimed self-defense. The jury acquitted, much to the despair of many people who said the jury was reasoning, "it is reasonable to expect that a black man on the subway will attack you." The defendant's case there was stronger because he was not the one to initiate contact, however.Also, doctrine is law. Law is statutes + precedent. Doesn't need to imply any illegal action. For example, is the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) law? -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
special_sauce 03/24/12 8:11:00 AM #42:	From: SmartMuffin \| #033 actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning that it destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidence Traditionally, hispanics are very racist towards black people (recently, perhaps even more so than whites). They aren't the same race. -- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg <cite>special_sauce posted [p:942789] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> From: SmartMuffin \| #033actually the defendant is hispanic but why bother mentioning thatit destroys your narrative of racism that is based on absolutely no evidenceTraditionally, hispanics are very racist towards black people (recently, perhaps even more so than whites). They aren't the same race. -- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmashttp://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
greengravy294 03/24/12 8:25:00 AM #43:	Same state that acquitted Casey Anthony. Doubt Zimmerman will ever go to jail for murder. Sucks. -- Try hard. Camp harder. <cite>greengravy294 posted [p:942790] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Same state that acquitted Casey Anthony. Doubt Zimmerman will ever go to jail for murder. Sucks. -- Try hard.Camp harder. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/24/12 8:23:00 PM #44:	Found two good articles on CNN today that actually presented Zimmerman's point of view, which is pretty rare. There is PLENTY of reasonable doubt here. A murder conviction would be darn near impossible, and for good reason. I would think MAYBE you could get first degree manslaughter or something, depending on how bloodthirsty the jury was. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942791] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Found two good articles on CNN today that actually presented Zimmerman's point of view, which is pretty rare. There is PLENTY of reasonable doubt here. A murder conviction would be darn near impossible, and for good reason.I would think MAYBE you could get first degree manslaughter or something, depending on how bloodthirsty the jury was. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EverythingRuned 03/24/12 8:38:00 PM #45:	*SmartMuffin posted...* Found two good articles on CNN today that actually presented Zimmerman's point of view, which is pretty rare. There is PLENTY of reasonable doubt here. A murder conviction would be darn near impossible, and for good reason. I would think MAYBE you could get first degree manslaughter or something, depending on how bloodthirsty the jury was. can you linkem? this sounds like i can take any random person off in the woods somewhere and shoot them and claim self defense <cite>EverythingRuned posted [p:942792] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> SmartMuffin posted...Found two good articles on CNN today that actually presented Zimmerman's point of view, which is pretty rare. There is PLENTY of reasonable doubt here. A murder conviction would be darn near impossible, and for good reason.I would think MAYBE you could get first degree manslaughter or something, depending on how bloodthirsty the jury was.can you linkem?this sounds like i can take any random person off in the woods somewhere and shoot them and claim self defense </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/24/12 8:49:00 PM #46:	I actually can't find them anymore. Saw them at work but now when I go to CNN it's nothing but opinion pieces from the outraged. this sounds like i can take any random person off in the woods somewhere and shoot them and claim self defense Except for a few things. * Witnesses reported seeing a struggle, and at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman. * Zimmerman was bloodied and had grass stains on him. * The police didn't "just let him go," they interrogated him for several hours and decided his story fleshed out with the witnesses and 911 tapes. * Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children. It seems to me that the people who know the most about what happened, other than Zimmerman himself of course, are the police. They decided that it was a justifiable use of deadly force due to self defense. I suppose you can assume they only decided that because they're racist if you want, but you have to keep in mind that means they're SO racist against blacks that they're willing to let a hispanic get away with murder. However, let's play your hypothetical little game. Let's say you take someone out in the woods and they attack you. At one point during the fight, they are on top of you reigning blows upon you and you think they've already broken your nose. You also happen to have a gun within reach. If you use the gun to end the assault, does that count as killing someone in cold blood? Or are you justified? Just because Zimmerman "pursued" Martin does not necessarily mean that he was the one who started the physical confrontation. Let's say that he's running after Martin and right when he's about to catch him, Martin turns around and decks him in the head, knocking him to the ground. Obviously I'm engaging in rampant theorycraft here, but the point is, so are all of the people who are ready to declare this an obvious homicide. Nobody KNOWS exactly what happened here. The witness accounts are all very shady at best, nobody seems to have gotten a good look at the ENTIRE chain of events, or the actual shooting itself at all. Given the established doctrines of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" it seems to me that, barring any new evidence, Zimmerman should probably go free, or, like I said, go on trial for manslaughter AT THE WORST. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942793] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> I actually can't find them anymore. Saw them at work but now when I go to CNN it's nothing but opinion pieces from the outraged.this sounds like i can take any random person off in the woods somewhere and shoot them and claim self defenseExcept for a few things.* Witnesses reported seeing a struggle, and at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman.* Zimmerman was bloodied and had grass stains on him.* The police didn't "just let him go," they interrogated him for several hours and decided his story fleshed out with the witnesses and 911 tapes.* Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children.It seems to me that the people who know the most about what happened, other than Zimmerman himself of course, are the police. They decided that it was a justifiable use of deadly force due to self defense. I suppose you can assume they only decided that because they're racist if you want, but you have to keep in mind that means they're SO racist against blacks that they're willing to let a hispanic get away with murder.However, let's play your hypothetical little game. Let's say you take someone out in the woods and they attack you. At one point during the fight, they are on top of you reigning blows upon you and you think they've already broken your nose. You also happen to have a gun within reach. If you use the gun to end the assault, does that count as killing someone in cold blood? Or are you justified?Just because Zimmerman "pursued" Martin does not necessarily mean that he was the one who started the physical confrontation. Let's say that he's running after Martin and right when he's about to catch him, Martin turns around and decks him in the head, knocking him to the ground.Obviously I'm engaging in rampant theorycraft here, but the point is, so are all of the people who are ready to declare this an obvious homicide. Nobody KNOWS exactly what happened here. The witness accounts are all very shady at best, nobody seems to have gotten a good look at the ENTIRE chain of events, or the actual shooting itself at all. Given the established doctrines of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" it seems to me that, barring any new evidence, Zimmerman should probably go free, or, like I said, go on trial for manslaughter AT THE WORST. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FartAstronaut69 03/24/12 8:59:00 PM #47:	* Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children. and obviously one or both of those black children betrayed him and now he's killing other black children as an act of vengeance. -- toot <cite>FartAstronaut69 posted [p:942794] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> * Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children.and obviously one or both of those black children betrayed him and now he's killing other black children as an act of vengeance. -- toot </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/24/12 9:00:00 PM #48:	and obviously one or both of those black children betrayed him and now he's killing other black children as an act of vengeance. Yes, I forgot to mention that Zimmerman is a Sith lord. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:942795] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> and obviously one or both of those black children betrayed him and now he's killing other black children as an act of vengeance.Yes, I forgot to mention that Zimmerman is a Sith lord. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/25/12 12:45:00 AM #49:	Except for a few things. * Witnesses reported seeing a struggle, and at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman. * Zimmerman was bloodied and had grass stains on him. * The police didn't "just let him go," they interrogated him for several hours and decided his story fleshed out with the witnesses and 911 tapes. * Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children. It seems to me that the people who know the most about what happened, other than Zimmerman himself of course, are the police. They decided that it was a justifiable use of deadly force due to self defense. I suppose you can assume they only decided that because they're racist if you want, but you have to keep in mind that means they're SO racist against blacks that they're willing to let a hispanic get away with murder. However, let's play your hypothetical little game. Let's say you take someone out in the woods and they attack you. At one point during the fight, they are on top of you reigning blows upon you and you think they've already broken your nose. You also happen to have a gun within reach. If you use the gun to end the assault, does that count as killing someone in cold blood? Or are you justified? Just because Zimmerman "pursued" Martin does not necessarily mean that he was the one who started the physical confrontation. Let's say that he's running after Martin and right when he's about to catch him, Martin turns around and decks him in the head, knocking him to the ground. Obviously I'm engaging in rampant theorycraft here, but the point is, so are all of the people who are ready to declare this an obvious homicide. Nobody KNOWS exactly what happened here. The witness accounts are all very shady at best, nobody seems to have gotten a good look at the ENTIRE chain of events, or the actual shooting itself at all. Given the established doctrines of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" it seems to me that, barring any new evidence, Zimmerman should probably go free, or, like I said, go on trial for manslaughter AT THE WORST. No, that means he should go on trial for murder if the district attorney chooses to prosecute and the jury should decide. Also,presumably there is more evidence than you are stating here. And there are certainly other inferences to draw than your conclusions. The 4 things you mentioned specifically are all not dispositive and easily overcome by other evidence. Again, it does not matter if Zimmerman honestly believed he was in mortal danger, if the belief was not reasonable. The question is not whether his belief was honest. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:942796] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> Except for a few things.* Witnesses reported seeing a struggle, and at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman.* Zimmerman was bloodied and had grass stains on him.* The police didn't "just let him go," they interrogated him for several hours and decided his story fleshed out with the witnesses and 911 tapes.* Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children.It seems to me that the people who know the most about what happened, other than Zimmerman himself of course, are the police. They decided that it was a justifiable use of deadly force due to self defense. I suppose you can assume they only decided that because they're racist if you want, but you have to keep in mind that means they're SO racist against blacks that they're willing to let a hispanic get away with murder.However, let's play your hypothetical little game. Let's say you take someone out in the woods and they attack you. At one point during the fight, they are on top of you reigning blows upon you and you think they've already broken your nose. You also happen to have a gun within reach. If you use the gun to end the assault, does that count as killing someone in cold blood? Or are you justified?Just because Zimmerman "pursued" Martin does not necessarily mean that he was the one who started the physical confrontation. Let's say that he's running after Martin and right when he's about to catch him, Martin turns around and decks him in the head, knocking him to the ground.Obviously I'm engaging in rampant theorycraft here, but the point is, so are all of the people who are ready to declare this an obvious homicide. Nobody KNOWS exactly what happened here. The witness accounts are all very shady at best, nobody seems to have gotten a good look at the ENTIRE chain of events, or the actual shooting itself at all. Given the established doctrines of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" it seems to me that, barring any new evidence, Zimmerman should probably go free, or, like I said, go on trial for manslaughter AT THE WORST.No, that means he should go on trial for murder if the district attorney chooses to prosecute and the jury should decide. Also,presumably there is more evidence than you are stating here. And there are certainly other inferences to draw than your conclusions. The 4 things you mentioned specifically are all not dispositive and easily overcome by other evidence.Again, it does not matter if Zimmerman honestly believed he was in mortal danger, if the belief was not reasonable. The question is not whether his belief was honest. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/25/12 12:54:00 AM #50:	I'm not racist, my best friend is black! -- _foolmo_ 'nice comma splice' - TomNook7 <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:942797] in Trayvon Ma... [t:62337790]...</cite> <quote> I'm not racist, my best friend is black! -- _foolmo_'nice comma splice' - TomNook7 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Board 8 > Trayvon Martin has NOTHING to do with the "stand your ground" doctrine [dwmf] (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Trayvon Martin has NOTHING to do with the "stand your ground" doctrine [dwmf]