The plot thickens
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37
VIEWED: 10592
PAGE 8 of 13
If the Zimmerman narrative is true, then his self-defense claim would be valid under any common law jurisdiction. A duty to retreat is only relevant if Trayvon were the aggressor, and Zimmerman had the means to escape in complete safety. Simply standing up does not meet that standard. The "stand your ground law" just has no bearing here.
I propose that we brief the issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why does Story even bother to post? Hes just a troll that likes to back the other somnambulist posters here.
Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind?
In any case. Back to the topic....
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The thing is that your hand using the gun maybe fine. That does not mean the gun is going to stay in your hand.
Hello,
I have heard this before, and it always mystifies me.
One needs the weapon only if their life is in danger.
One employs the weapon only if their life is in danger.
If you employ the weapon successfully, your life is no longer in danger.
If the weapon is taken from you, your life is in danger.
Which is exactly as it was before you produced the weapon.
A weapon taken from the hand only worsens your situation if you were deploying it unnecessarily to begin with.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
If the Zimmerman narrative is true, then his self-defense claim would be valid under any common law jurisdiction. A duty to retreat is only relevant if Trayvon were the aggressor, and Zimmerman had the means to escape in complete safety. Simply standing up does not meet that standard. The "stand your ground law" just has no bearing here.
I propose that we brief the issue.
He would at least have to try to get away after his get to his feet. It is true that that if Martin kept attacking he than could use force.
The other thing to remember is that under duty to retreat a person must make every effort to avoid confrontation. That means Zimmerman's self-defence claim would be out the window as soon as he approched Martin seeing as he was told not to.
This case is very much about the stand your ground law. Without it Zimmerman has little defence.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why does Story even bother to post? Hes just a troll that likes to back the other somnambulist posters her.
Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind?
In any case. Back to the topic....
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
You can't troll when you are right!
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This case is very much about the stand your ground law. Without it Zimmerman has little defence.
Hello,
There are many laws that protect the innocent which are also used to shield the wicked. Zimmerman is protected by many laws. Shall we peel them all away? Or shall we accept 'stand your ground' as we accept other individual rights under the law, and simply recognize that it is possible to obtain evidence for conviction despite it, when conviction is warranted?
I continue to feel that the problem is not the law, but rather poor investigation (and initially no real attempt at investigation at all!)
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I have heard this before, and it always mystifies me.
One needs the weapon only if their life is in danger.
One employs the weapon only if their life is in danger.
If you employ the weapon successfully, your life is no longer in danger.
If the weapon is taken from you, your life is in danger.
Which is exactly as it was before you produced the weapon.
A weapon taken from the hand only worsens your situation if you were deploying it unnecessarily to begin with.
--Anthony
It's simple, had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would not be dead. It is less likley that Martin beats Zimmerman to death, than for what happened to take place.
At the end of the day Zimmerman did nto have to get out of his car. He did not have to follow Martin. Zimmerman is the one that intruduced the gun into the situation by his actions.
...and not everyone is going to deploy a gun successfully.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
There are many laws that protect the innocent which are also used to shield the wicked. Zimmerman is protected by many laws. Shall we peel them all away? Or shall we accept 'stand your ground' as we accept other individual rights under the law, and simply recognize that it is possible to obtain evidence for conviction despite it, when conviction is warranted?
I continue to feel that the problem is not the law, but rather poor investigation (and initially no real attempt at investigation at all!)
Your right, there are.
The issue is that the law as written does not ask people to try and avoid these kind of situations. A persons best defence is not putting yourself in a positions to be harmed.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, this is often the case. An incident occurs where someone has been an ass, and the desire surfaces to modify the law to remove rights from the population. In this case, rights being contested by our forumites now include the right to carry arms at all.
As I said, if you want to modify the 'stand your ground' law to say specifically that someone can not provoke an attack and claim self-defense, that's fine. But I also think such a contraindication is self-evident despite the law. I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws.
And now we've gotten to the 'if there was no gun, nobody would have died' part of the argument, which is where I must respectfully withdraw. Once people start talking about leaving me defenseless in the face of aggression, I begin to feel that those people no longer have my best interests at heart.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
You have some steel and some sense about you.
Good job.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME