The proscution better have a STRONG case cause self defense cases are the toughfest to win a guilty verdict. Why, because the victim who cannot speak is put on trial and i hope the parents on both sides can handle it all.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
The proscution better have a STRONG case cause self defense cases are the toughfest to win a guilty verdict. Why, because the victim who cannot speak is put on trial and i hope the parents on both sides can handle it all.
Peace
I agree that it may prove difficult for the prosecution but only because of the intense media coverage which many prosecuting offices tend to have difficulty in high media coverage cases. And perhaps that is more of a jury issue than actually their fault?
But in real everyday life the prosecution has it easiest. They usually already have the police and judges on their side at the beginning of the proceeding. Some police have professional expertise in embellishment as trained by heartless prosecutor.
This case will be further complicated by the race issue and how long it took for the prosecution and police to pretend they care about the victim.
how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
Unfortunately you are right...you don't have to be on your property, you can be anywhere and claim self defense with this *Stand Your Ground* law
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
That is where it gets sketchy. The law says you may kill someone dead even if you feel great bodily harm is coming your way. Its such a subjective thing that i dont know how you prove this... What is great bodily harm? I may think great bodily harm is getting my eye poked. That shit hurts. Or maybe getting your nose broken is great bodily harm? (by the way, how long does it take a broken nose to heal back to 100% normal?)
You can also kill someone dead to prevent a forcible felony. Thats a little more clear cut I suppose.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
That is where it gets sketchy. The law says you may kill someone dead even if you feel great bodily harm is coming your way. Its such a subjective thing that i dont know how you prove this... What is great bodily harm? I may think great bodily harm is getting my eye poked. That shit hurts. Or maybe getting your nose broken is great bodily harm? (by the way, how long does it take a broken nose to heal back to 100% normal?)
You can also kill someone dead to prevent a forcible felony. Thats a little more clear cut I suppose.
yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
sure ... if you are legitimately in danger and retreat is not possible ... but that's not what this law allows for ... this law says you don't have to retreat and you can shoot it out ... this law basically allows me to kill anyone i want as long as there are no witnesses that can prove "my" side of the story ... "justifiable" homicides tripled since the law went into effect in a state that had no previous significant problem with homicides ...
yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.
no ... the law is horrible beyond belief ... there are already laws in place that protect a person who's life is in danger ... this law promotes gun violence ... because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened ... which means death ... and guns are the best way to kill people ...
edit: mandatory arrest and grand jury does nothing ... if the only other witness to an incident is dead ... it's the killer's version of the story that stands ...
yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.
no ... the law is horrible beyond belief ... there are already laws in place that protect a person who's life is in danger ... this law promotes gun violence ... because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened ... which means death ... and guns are the best way to kill people ...
edit: mandatory arrest and grand jury does nothing ... if the only other witness to an incident is dead ... it's the killer's version of the story that stands ...
first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.
Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?
as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.
Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?
as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ... and it does promote gun violence because all one has to do is show that their well being was at risk and the only way to ensure that is to make sure the other person is dead ...
there are already laws in place to protect people who defend themselves ... part of the reasoning the police force let zimmerman go was because of this law ...
this law was lobbied for by the NRA ... why do you think they wanted it?
Bad laws make shooting death of Trayvon Martin as pre-ordained as a Greek tragedy
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 11:07PM EDT
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is an invitation to violent disaster. It is a radical broadening of the law of self-defence that made the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black teen walking through a gated community in which he was a guest, seem nearly as preordained as any Greek tragedy.
And on that human tragedy, the death of a teen, is built a social disaster – the appearance of life being cheap, black life especially, and of impunity for those who kill because they insisted on standing their ground. Or who claimed that’s what they did.
More related to this story
The principle that a person’s home is a castle, and entitled to a deadly defence, has been by and large extended into the streets, in Florida and a score of other states. Stand Your Ground laws create something close to a presumption that an assailant intends to use deadly force, and that it is therefore reasonable use deadly force in return. Killing in self-defence no longer needs to be necessary to pass legal muster – a radical departure.
Florida’s numbers of justifiable homicide cases have nearly tripled since the 2005 law came in . Before the law, there were 12 a year, on average; and now there are 33. In Texas and Georgia, justifiable homicide cases have nearly doubled since those states passed Stand Your Ground laws. Most states with such laws have experienced large jumps in justifiable homicide cases, even as homicide rates have stayed flat.
Here is George Zimmerman, founder of his community’s Neighbourhood Watch. He is armed and in his vehicle, keeping an eye out for trouble. This is already a disaster in the making, rooted in Floridians’ right to carry a concealed handgun, a right most law-abiding societies, including Canada and the United Kingdom, don’t recognize.
A young man, Mr. Martin, enters the scene, carrying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. Mr. Zimmerman follows, phones the police, who tell him not to follow the young man. An altercation ensues, the young man is shot dead and local police don’t charge Mr. Zimmerman. In these circumstances, where the facts are not publicly known, it is reasonable to infer that the law gives immunity to those who act from suspicion and fear.
No wonder the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence warns visitors not to argue with Floridians. “No retreat” gives a man with a gun the right to the last word.
This version doesnt seem edited ^^^
He says he was near the clubhouse in the middle of the call. Then a few minutes later, Martin was dead. I saw the overhead map of the location of the clubhouse and the spot where Treyvon was killed. I think it will be pretty easy to prove that Zimmerman pursued Treyvon after that call because of the distance to where the crime was committed versus where he claimed he originally was....and the fact that Zimmerman agreed to meet police by the clubhouse and then suddenly recanted, saying they should call him when they arrive and he'd tell them where he was going to be. He's so very fucked.
the nra convention is in my fair city this weekend. 65,000 gun nuts are going to be in our convention center, and most of them no doubt will be packing some sort of heat.
my city has a huge problem with gun violence. way too many shootings and gun murders. some years it is as high or higher than chicago and detroit. i think it is pretty tasteless for them to come here.
i would be down there silently protesting with the rest of them but then come next week we might be discussing my own shooting...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.
Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?
as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ... and it does promote gun violence because all one has to do is show that their well being was at risk and the only way to ensure that is to make sure the other person is dead ...
there are already laws in place to protect people who defend themselves ... part of the reasoning the police force let zimmerman go was because of this law ...
this law was lobbied for by the NRA ... why do you think they wanted it?
because the NRA's purpose is to give the right to people to murder anyone anytime for anything, obviously :roll:
Unless you know the specifics of all the cases you cannot claim that this law is allowing shitty people to go free. Simply saying that justifiable homicide cases increasing since 2005 isn't a necessary indication that more criminals are getting away with murder because of this law. couldn't it also be said that more innocent people are fighting back? isn't that a reasonable assumption as well if we are simply looking at statistics? Your statement which read " because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened" was an overstatement. and it still is. You are claiming this law's purpose is to make sure the truth isn't known. That is not the purpose.
It allows for more gun violence in self defense, it doesn't promote it. I agree it was an unnecessary law, it was too vague and should be tightened up.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
because the NRA's purpose is to give the right to people to murder anyone anytime for anything, obviously :roll:
Unless you know the specifics of all the cases you cannot claim that this law is allowing shitty people to go free. Simply saying that justifiable homicide cases increasing since 2005 isn't a necessary indication that more criminals are getting away with murder because of this law. couldn't it also be said that more innocent people are fighting back? isn't that a reasonable assumption as well if we are simply looking at statistics? Your statement which read " because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened" was an overstatement. and it still is. You are claiming this law's purpose is to make sure the truth isn't known. That is not the purpose.
It allows for more gun violence in self defense, it doesn't promote it. I agree it was an unnecessary law, it was too vague and should be tightened up.
:roll:
good grief man ... yeah, i despise the nra but nowhere have i ever alluded that their purpose is to give people the right to murder each other ... so, i'm not even going to respond to that besides what i just wrote ...
the stats speak for themselves ... how can you even speculate that the increase is based on more people protecting themselves!?? ... form the state-attorneys offices to the police - they all agree this law is horrible because they know first hand people are getting away with murder ...
because the NRA's purpose is to give the right to people to murder anyone anytime for anything, obviously :roll:
Unless you know the specifics of all the cases you cannot claim that this law is allowing shitty people to go free. Simply saying that justifiable homicide cases increasing since 2005 isn't a necessary indication that more criminals are getting away with murder because of this law. couldn't it also be said that more innocent people are fighting back? isn't that a reasonable assumption as well if we are simply looking at statistics? Your statement which read " because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened" was an overstatement. and it still is. You are claiming this law's purpose is to make sure the truth isn't known. That is not the purpose.
It allows for more gun violence in self defense, it doesn't promote it. I agree it was an unnecessary law, it was too vague and should be tightened up.
:roll:
good grief man ... yeah, i despise the nra but nowhere have i ever alluded that their purpose is to give people the right to murder each other ... so, i'm not even going to respond to that besides what i just wrote ...
the stats speak for themselves ... how can you even speculate that the increase is based on more people protecting themselves!?? ... form the state-attorneys offices to the police - they all agree this law is horrible because they know first hand people are getting away with murder ...
I am more asking how you can speculate that the increase is only due to what you claim? I just asked if it would be reasonable to assume something different because of the statistics shown. Apparently you believe it isn't, that the only assumption that can be made based on an increase in justifiable homicide cases is that people are getting away with murder. that is fine.
I agree with you that the law was unnecessary, that it is too vague. Which is why I made my comment about mandatory arrest in the first place. You seemed to think that mandatory arrest and grand jury would do nothing, I would disagree. I think it would have helped in this case and brought us to where we are today...holes in the story can only last so long without being exposed...But your statements read to me as, this law is the worst law ever because it PROMOTES the killing of innocent people. I don't think it does that.
and how else should I have taken your NRA comment? I am not a fan of the organization either and I am not sure why you threw that in there with a question mark. Why don't you tell me why they supported the law if you don't like my response.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
Of course. The thing is, you don't need this law for that. It was already covered that killing an attacker to save you own life is self-defense and justifiable. I don't get why this law even exists. It just seems like it's practically made for people who kill people when they didn't need to. It really is a stupid law.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
why are we debating the outcome of this case ? I guess it's worth a guess but we won't know till the gavel hits the wood and after that it won't matter what we thought but if Zimmerson gets off or gets off easy we will be debating equal rights and riots...wouldn't that be just peachy.. so I think I'll just watch FoxNews and wait for the fireworks that may or may not come. ..and about this law,I don't think many us will compleatly understan untill we are in a situation that we have to fight for our lives.
I am more asking how you can speculate that the increase is only due to what you claim? I just asked if it would be reasonable to assume something different because of the statistics shown. Apparently you believe it isn't, that the only assumption that can be made based on an increase in justifiable homicide cases is that people are getting away with murder. that is fine.
I agree with you that the law was unnecessary, that it is too vague. Which is why I made my comment about mandatory arrest in the first place. You seemed to think that mandatory arrest and grand jury would do nothing, I would disagree. I think it would have helped in this case and brought us to where we are today...holes in the story can only last so long without being exposed...But your statements read to me as, this law is the worst law ever because it PROMOTES the killing of innocent people. I don't think it does that.
and how else should I have taken your NRA comment? I am not a fan of the organization either and I am not sure why you threw that in there with a question mark. Why don't you tell me why they supported the law if you don't like my response.
mandatory arrest does nothing because in essence zimmerman was "arrested" ... he was brought into the police station for questioning ... the "stand your ground" law will make it very hard for the prosecution in this case ... there are numerous examples of how this law has resulted in people dying unnecessarily and the killers not held accountable ... again - it is why the state-attorney and police are vehemently opposed to this law ...
it is a horrible law because it promotes gun violence and taken away any accountability ...
the NRA's primary purpose is to promote gun ownership and freedom ... this law promotes gun ownership ...
why are we debating the outcome of this case ? I guess it's worth a guess but we won't know till the gavel hits the wood and after that it won't matter what we thought but if Zimmerson gets off or gets off easy we will be debating equal rights and riots...wouldn't that be just peachy.. so I think I'll just watch FoxNews and wait for the fireworks that may or may not come. ..and about this law,I don't think many us will compleatly understan untill we are in a situation that we have to fight for our lives.
Godfather.
... You aren't really going to watch all the coverage on FoxNews, are you?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am more asking how you can speculate that the increase is only due to what you claim? I just asked if it would be reasonable to assume something different because of the statistics shown. Apparently you believe it isn't, that the only assumption that can be made based on an increase in justifiable homicide cases is that people are getting away with murder. that is fine.
I agree with you that the law was unnecessary, that it is too vague. Which is why I made my comment about mandatory arrest in the first place. You seemed to think that mandatory arrest and grand jury would do nothing, I would disagree. I think it would have helped in this case and brought us to where we are today...holes in the story can only last so long without being exposed...But your statements read to me as, this law is the worst law ever because it PROMOTES the killing of innocent people. I don't think it does that.
and how else should I have taken your NRA comment? I am not a fan of the organization either and I am not sure why you threw that in there with a question mark. Why don't you tell me why they supported the law if you don't like my response.
mandatory arrest does nothing because in essence zimmerman was "arrested" ... he was brought into the police station for questioning ... the "stand your ground" law will make it very hard for the prosecution in this case ... there are numerous examples of how this law has resulted in people dying unnecessarily and the killers not held accountable ... again - it is why the state-attorney and police are vehemently opposed to this law ...
it is a horrible law because it promotes gun violence and taken away any accountability ...
the NRA's primary purpose is to promote gun ownership and freedom ... this law promotes gun ownership ...
I was wondering about how the NRA would tie in and you raise good points. Sorry for the overstatement earlier as I really wasn't sure at all where you were going...But, I think the NRA would be for the law more so because it "protects" those with conceal and carry permits...I don't think this law alone makes people want to go buy guns or get conceal and carry...The laws of my state did nothing to motivate my want for firearms.
I guess we will just have to disagree on the difference between promoting and allowing for...because it seems you won't budge from your assessment that it promotes behaviors, and I won't from mine that it allows for behaviors but does nothing to promote them. I wish there was a handshake emoticon
Don't forget about the Grand Jury as well, not just mandatory arrest. there is a difference. Mandatory arrest would leave it in the hands of the police only...a grand jury would open the door to much more scrutiny.
But I agree the vagueness of the law leaves doors open for unnecessary deaths. It is way too subjective.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the NRA is out to promote the sale of guns ... it's the gun lobby ... they see regulation and restrictions as limitations to gun sales ... no different than air quality standards would affect the sale of gas ... the consequences of these lobbyists are irrelevant ... they don't care if more people die because they are only concerned with sales ...
and i am dismissing your mandatory arrest and grand jury simply because in many cases - these things have gone to trial and the outcome is killer goes free and taxpayers money went down the tubes, prosecutors are frustrated and cops are pissed ... south carolina is already looking to repeal their law ...
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ...
They may have tripled because the law just changed the way a homicide was categorized from the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that it encourages homicides to take place.
why are we debating the outcome of this case ? I guess it's worth a guess but we won't know till the gavel hits the wood and after that it won't matter what we thought but if Zimmerson gets off or gets off easy we will be debating equal rights and riots...wouldn't that be just peachy.. so I think I'll just watch FoxNews and wait for the fireworks that may or may not come. ..and about this law,I don't think many us will compleatly understan untill we are in a situation that we have to fight for our lives.
Godfather.
Why is it that some of you think that they will be riots if the decision isn't sufficient to those who want a guilty verdict or some sort of punishment for Zimmerman? Most I believe will accept what comes out of this case and leave it where the the jury rules.
peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
why are we debating the outcome of this case ? I guess it's worth a guess but we won't know till the gavel hits the wood and after that it won't matter what we thought but if Zimmerson gets off or gets off easy we will be debating equal rights and riots...wouldn't that be just peachy.. so I think I'll just watch FoxNews and wait for the fireworks that may or may not come. ..and about this law,I don't think many us will compleatly understan untill we are in a situation that we have to fight for our lives.
Godfather.
Why is it that some of you think that they will be riots if the decision isn't sufficient to those who want a guilty verdict or some sort of punishment for Zimmerman? Most I believe will accept what comes out of this case and leave it where the the jury rules.
why are we debating the outcome of this case ? I guess it's worth a guess but we won't know till the gavel hits the wood and after that it won't matter what we thought but if Zimmerson gets off or gets off easy we will be debating equal rights and riots...wouldn't that be just peachy.. so I think I'll just watch FoxNews and wait for the fireworks that may or may not come. ..and about this law,I don't think many us will compleatly understan untill we are in a situation that we have to fight for our lives.
Godfather.
... You aren't really going to watch all the coverage on FoxNews, are you?
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ...
They may have tripled because the law just changed the way a homicide was categorized from the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that it encourages homicides to take place.
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ...
They may have tripled because the law just changed the way a homicide was categorized from the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that it encourages homicides to take place.
Comments
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I agree that it may prove difficult for the prosecution but only because of the intense media coverage which many prosecuting offices tend to have difficulty in high media coverage cases. And perhaps that is more of a jury issue than actually their fault?
But in real everyday life the prosecution has it easiest. They usually already have the police and judges on their side at the beginning of the proceeding. Some police have professional expertise in embellishment as trained by heartless prosecutor.
This case will be further complicated by the race issue and how long it took for the prosecution and police to pretend they care about the victim.
because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...
Unfortunately you are right...you don't have to be on your property, you can be anywhere and claim self defense with this *Stand Your Ground* law
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?
If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That is where it gets sketchy. The law says you may kill someone dead even if you feel great bodily harm is coming your way. Its such a subjective thing that i dont know how you prove this... What is great bodily harm? I may think great bodily harm is getting my eye poked. That shit hurts. Or maybe getting your nose broken is great bodily harm? (by the way, how long does it take a broken nose to heal back to 100% normal?)
You can also kill someone dead to prevent a forcible felony. Thats a little more clear cut I suppose.
yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sure ... if you are legitimately in danger and retreat is not possible ... but that's not what this law allows for ... this law says you don't have to retreat and you can shoot it out ... this law basically allows me to kill anyone i want as long as there are no witnesses that can prove "my" side of the story ... "justifiable" homicides tripled since the law went into effect in a state that had no previous significant problem with homicides ...
no ... the law is horrible beyond belief ... there are already laws in place that protect a person who's life is in danger ... this law promotes gun violence ... because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened ... which means death ... and guns are the best way to kill people ...
edit: mandatory arrest and grand jury does nothing ... if the only other witness to an incident is dead ... it's the killer's version of the story that stands ...
first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.
Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?
as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ... and it does promote gun violence because all one has to do is show that their well being was at risk and the only way to ensure that is to make sure the other person is dead ...
there are already laws in place to protect people who defend themselves ... part of the reasoning the police force let zimmerman go was because of this law ...
this law was lobbied for by the NRA ... why do you think they wanted it?
Bad laws make shooting death of Trayvon Martin as pre-ordained as a Greek tragedy
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 11:07PM EDT
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is an invitation to violent disaster. It is a radical broadening of the law of self-defence that made the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black teen walking through a gated community in which he was a guest, seem nearly as preordained as any Greek tragedy.
And on that human tragedy, the death of a teen, is built a social disaster – the appearance of life being cheap, black life especially, and of impunity for those who kill because they insisted on standing their ground. Or who claimed that’s what they did.
More related to this story
The principle that a person’s home is a castle, and entitled to a deadly defence, has been by and large extended into the streets, in Florida and a score of other states. Stand Your Ground laws create something close to a presumption that an assailant intends to use deadly force, and that it is therefore reasonable use deadly force in return. Killing in self-defence no longer needs to be necessary to pass legal muster – a radical departure.
Florida’s numbers of justifiable homicide cases have nearly tripled since the 2005 law came in . Before the law, there were 12 a year, on average; and now there are 33. In Texas and Georgia, justifiable homicide cases have nearly doubled since those states passed Stand Your Ground laws. Most states with such laws have experienced large jumps in justifiable homicide cases, even as homicide rates have stayed flat.
Here is George Zimmerman, founder of his community’s Neighbourhood Watch. He is armed and in his vehicle, keeping an eye out for trouble. This is already a disaster in the making, rooted in Floridians’ right to carry a concealed handgun, a right most law-abiding societies, including Canada and the United Kingdom, don’t recognize.
A young man, Mr. Martin, enters the scene, carrying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. Mr. Zimmerman follows, phones the police, who tell him not to follow the young man. An altercation ensues, the young man is shot dead and local police don’t charge Mr. Zimmerman. In these circumstances, where the facts are not publicly known, it is reasonable to infer that the law gives immunity to those who act from suspicion and fear.
No wonder the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence warns visitors not to argue with Floridians. “No retreat” gives a man with a gun the right to the last word.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogal ... von-Martin
This version doesnt seem edited ^^^
He says he was near the clubhouse in the middle of the call. Then a few minutes later, Martin was dead. I saw the overhead map of the location of the clubhouse and the spot where Treyvon was killed. I think it will be pretty easy to prove that Zimmerman pursued Treyvon after that call because of the distance to where the crime was committed versus where he claimed he originally was....and the fact that Zimmerman agreed to meet police by the clubhouse and then suddenly recanted, saying they should call him when they arrive and he'd tell them where he was going to be. He's so very fucked.
my city has a huge problem with gun violence. way too many shootings and gun murders. some years it is as high or higher than chicago and detroit. i think it is pretty tasteless for them to come here.
i would be down there silently protesting with the rest of them but then come next week we might be discussing my own shooting...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Unless you know the specifics of all the cases you cannot claim that this law is allowing shitty people to go free. Simply saying that justifiable homicide cases increasing since 2005 isn't a necessary indication that more criminals are getting away with murder because of this law. couldn't it also be said that more innocent people are fighting back? isn't that a reasonable assumption as well if we are simply looking at statistics? Your statement which read " because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened" was an overstatement. and it still is. You are claiming this law's purpose is to make sure the truth isn't known. That is not the purpose.
It allows for more gun violence in self defense, it doesn't promote it. I agree it was an unnecessary law, it was too vague and should be tightened up.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
:roll:
good grief man ... yeah, i despise the nra but nowhere have i ever alluded that their purpose is to give people the right to murder each other ... so, i'm not even going to respond to that besides what i just wrote ...
the stats speak for themselves ... how can you even speculate that the increase is based on more people protecting themselves!?? ... form the state-attorneys offices to the police - they all agree this law is horrible because they know first hand people are getting away with murder ...
I am more asking how you can speculate that the increase is only due to what you claim? I just asked if it would be reasonable to assume something different because of the statistics shown. Apparently you believe it isn't, that the only assumption that can be made based on an increase in justifiable homicide cases is that people are getting away with murder. that is fine.
I agree with you that the law was unnecessary, that it is too vague. Which is why I made my comment about mandatory arrest in the first place. You seemed to think that mandatory arrest and grand jury would do nothing, I would disagree. I think it would have helped in this case and brought us to where we are today...holes in the story can only last so long without being exposed...But your statements read to me as, this law is the worst law ever because it PROMOTES the killing of innocent people. I don't think it does that.
and how else should I have taken your NRA comment? I am not a fan of the organization either and I am not sure why you threw that in there with a question mark. Why don't you tell me why they supported the law if you don't like my response.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Godfather.
mandatory arrest does nothing because in essence zimmerman was "arrested" ... he was brought into the police station for questioning ... the "stand your ground" law will make it very hard for the prosecution in this case ... there are numerous examples of how this law has resulted in people dying unnecessarily and the killers not held accountable ... again - it is why the state-attorney and police are vehemently opposed to this law ...
it is a horrible law because it promotes gun violence and taken away any accountability ...
the NRA's primary purpose is to promote gun ownership and freedom ... this law promotes gun ownership ...
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... bout-obama
I was wondering about how the NRA would tie in and you raise good points. Sorry for the overstatement earlier as I really wasn't sure at all where you were going...But, I think the NRA would be for the law more so because it "protects" those with conceal and carry permits...I don't think this law alone makes people want to go buy guns or get conceal and carry...The laws of my state did nothing to motivate my want for firearms.
I guess we will just have to disagree on the difference between promoting and allowing for...because it seems you won't budge from your assessment that it promotes behaviors, and I won't from mine that it allows for behaviors but does nothing to promote them. I wish there was a handshake emoticon
Don't forget about the Grand Jury as well, not just mandatory arrest. there is a difference. Mandatory arrest would leave it in the hands of the police only...a grand jury would open the door to much more scrutiny.
But I agree the vagueness of the law leaves doors open for unnecessary deaths. It is way too subjective.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the NRA is out to promote the sale of guns ... it's the gun lobby ... they see regulation and restrictions as limitations to gun sales ... no different than air quality standards would affect the sale of gas ... the consequences of these lobbyists are irrelevant ... they don't care if more people die because they are only concerned with sales ...
and i am dismissing your mandatory arrest and grand jury simply because in many cases - these things have gone to trial and the outcome is killer goes free and taxpayers money went down the tubes, prosecutors are frustrated and cops are pissed ... south carolina is already looking to repeal their law ...
Why is it that some of you think that they will be riots if the decision isn't sufficient to those who want a guilty verdict or some sort of punishment for Zimmerman? Most I believe will accept what comes out of this case and leave it where the the jury rules.
peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
history.
Godfather.
no not all of it
Godfather.
:fp: