RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack....

RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/22/2012 10:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you would not shoot someone you believed was insane which means your internet bravado was a lie. Thanks for clearing that up. If they were attacking me, yes I would. Try not derailing the topic with weird assumptions and diversionary tactics please. I know it's tough...but try.

DomKen -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 2:21:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you would not shoot someone you believed was insane which means your internet bravado was a lie. Thanks for clearing that up. If they were attacking me, yes I would. Try not derailing the topic with weird assumptions and diversionary tactics please. I know it's tough...but try. Then you admit you would kill someone without cause so we're back to then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life.

joether -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 2:55:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you would not shoot someone you believed was insane which means your internet bravado was a lie. Thanks for clearing that up. If they were attacking me, yes I would. Try not derailing the topic with weird assumptions and diversionary tactics please. I know it's tough...but try. Then you admit you would kill someone without cause so we're back to then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. If 'A' attacks 'B', 'B' defends itself from 'A'. If 'A' doesn't attack 'B', 'B' doesnt initate hostilities towards 'A'. If the above two concepts are true and correct. Why would 'B' pre-emptively attack 'A' when 'A' is not attacking 'B'?

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 5:00:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Then you admit you would kill someone without cause so we're back to then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. Reading comprehension can be fun....apparently you missed the boat. Killing in self-defense is not killing without cause. There's a world of difference and that's where your problem lies.

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 5:04:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If 'A' attacks 'B', 'B' defends itself from 'A'. If 'A' doesn't attack 'B', 'B' doesnt initate hostilities towards 'A'. If the above two concepts are true and correct. Why would 'B' pre-emptively attack 'A' when 'A' is not attacking 'B'? Let me put that into current terminology so ol' Ken can understand it better. Zimmerman followed Martin, but did not initiate any attack on him. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have had no reason to defend himself. However, since the oh-so-egregious crime of "following" justified attacking Zimmerman in Martin's mind, he attacked Zimmerman and made him have to defend himself. Had he just gone straight to his destination, like his girlfriend asked him to, he'd still be alive today.

Nosathro -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 7:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: That`s why the law itself will be amended out of existence or killed outright........ Actually, btw, something very much akin to the Fl law has been the law in Calif for a century. SYG laws are spreading, and will continue to spread, in my opinion. People are sick and tired of the lack of safety in so many of our neighborhoods. We are getting very close to passing a federal law requiring reciprocity of CCW licenses, too. Gonna be fun watching NYC and Chicago cops as they learn to deal with legally armed citizens. Really well welcome to Dodge City USA. Everyone is going to carry and conceal a fireman. I can see it know..."I felt resonably threaten by his (fill in the blank) so I was resonably sure my life was threatn by (fill in the blank) so I shot and killed. By the way for all of you I do come from a law enforcement back ground.

Nosathro -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 7:38:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: joether If 'A' attacks 'B', 'B' defends itself from 'A'. If 'A' doesn't attack 'B', 'B' doesnt initate hostilities towards 'A'. If the above two concepts are true and correct. Why would 'B' pre-emptively attack 'A' when 'A' is not attacking 'B'? Let me put that into current terminology so ol' Ken can understand it better. Zimmerman followed Martin, but did not initiate any attack on him. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have had no reason to defend himself. However, since the oh-so-egregious crime of "following" justified attacking Zimmerman in Martin's mind, he attacked Zimmerman and made him have to defend himself. Had he just gone straight to his destination, like his girlfriend asked him to, he'd still be alive today. Let us look at from Martin view. He is walking home (his father lived in the gated community, so he has a legitmate reason to be there) it is dark, rainning, and he sees a truck following him. Is anyone reading this, feel "reasonably" threaten. Under the SYG law Martin could if he felt threaten he could legally confront Zimmerman and use force. Martin did so, he punched him, Zimmerman gets a bloddy nose falls to the ground scraps his head on the concerte. So he feel "reasonably" his life is in dangers takes his gun out and shoots Martain. Zimmerman is a "wanna be" cop, if he wants to be one he better get use to being punched and not use his gun. He also better start following orders. One punch and Zimmerman is decked, what a whimp.

Real0ne -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 7:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: That`s why the law itself will be amended out of existence or killed outright........ Actually, btw, something very much akin to the Fl law has been the law in Calif for a century. SYG laws are spreading, and will continue to spread, in my opinion. People are sick and tired of the lack of safety in so many of our neighborhoods. We are getting very close to passing a federal law requiring reciprocity of CCW licenses, too. Gonna be fun watching NYC and Chicago cops as they learn to deal with legally armed citizens. Really well welcome to Dodge City USA. Everyone is going to carry and conceal a fireman. I can see it know..."I felt resonably threaten by his (fill in the blank) so I was resonably sure my life was threatn by (fill in the blank) so I shot and killed. By the way for all of you I do come from a law enforcement back ground. think of how respectful people will start treating one another

Nosathro -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 8:46:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: joether If 'A' attacks 'B', 'B' defends itself from 'A'. If 'A' doesn't attack 'B', 'B' doesnt initate hostilities towards 'A'. If the above two concepts are true and correct. Why would 'B' pre-emptively attack 'A' when 'A' is not attacking 'B'? Let me put that into current terminology so ol' Ken can understand it better. Zimmerman followed Martin, but did not initiate any attack on him. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have had no reason to defend himself. However, since the oh-so-egregious crime of "following" justified attacking Zimmerman in Martin's mind, he attacked Zimmerman and made him have to defend himself. Had he just gone straight to his destination, like his girlfriend asked him to, he'd still be alive today. If Martin felt threated by Zimmerman following him in his vehicle under the SYG law Martin would be within his rights not only to confront Zimmerman but also the right to defend himself. I find it so funny that the law applies to one person but not the other.

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 8:50:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro If Martin felt threated by Zimmerman following him in his vehicle under the SYG law Martin would be within his rights not only to confront Zimmerman but also the right to defend himself. I find it so funny that the law applies to one person but not the other. That's where you're wrong. "Feeling threatened" must come from some sort of attack. Zimmerman did not attack Martin. He followed him. That in and of itself is not enough to warrant an attack. However getting attacked as Martin attacked Zimmerman is enough to warrant getting shot....as Martin got shot when he attacked Zimmerman. Furthermore, your assertion that Martin felt threatened is proven false by his own girlfriend who said she told him on the phone to run. He replied "No, I'm not gonna run." And then she overheard him accosting Zimmerman and refusing to answer his questions.

Nosathro -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 2:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro If Martin felt threated by Zimmerman following him in his vehicle under the SYG law Martin would be within his rights not only to confront Zimmerman but also the right to defend himself. I find it so funny that the law applies to one person but not the other. That's where you're wrong. "Feeling threatened" must come from some sort of attack. Zimmerman did not attack Martin. He followed him. That in and of itself is not enough to warrant an attack. However getting attacked as Martin attacked Zimmerman is enough to warrant getting shot....as Martin got shot when he attacked Zimmerman. Furthermore, your assertion that Martin felt threatened is proven false by his own girlfriend who said she told him on the phone to run. He replied "No, I'm not gonna run." And then she overheard him accosting Zimmerman and refusing to answer his questions. Wrong, I said "If" not "did" I was presenting a theory. Read the law... 2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21] 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— There is only "reasonably believes" no action is required. Martin knowing a car was following him could have felt threatened. And is Zimmerman or anybody feels they are going to be killed by a punch.. the graveyards would be full Zimmerman is no offical authority, Martin was not required to answer any of Zimmerman questions.

DomKen -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 2:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Then you admit you would kill someone without cause so we're back to then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. Reading comprehension can be fun....apparently you missed the boat. Killing in self-defense is not killing without cause. There's a world of difference and that's where your problem lies. Simply being attacked is not cause for use of deadly force, despite your internet bravado fantasies.

Real0ne -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 8:09:36 PM)
typically, but it can be. depends, the devil is in the details.

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 11:56:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro If Martin felt threated by Zimmerman following him in his vehicle under the SYG law Martin would be within his rights not only to confront Zimmerman but also the right to defend himself. I find it so funny that the law applies to one person but not the other. The problem with your logic is that Zimmerman didn't attack Martin. Following is not attacking. You can't legally kill someone who asks you why you are where you are. You can only answer or not. Martin chose to attack, thus he became the aggressor.

Owner59 -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/23/2012 11:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro If Martin felt threated by Zimmerman following him in his vehicle under the SYG law Martin would be within his rights not only to confront Zimmerman but also the right to defend himself. I find it so funny that the law applies to one person but not the other. The problem with your logic is that Zimmerman didn't attack Martin. Following is not attacking. You can't legally kill someone who asks you why you are where you are. You can only answer or not. Martin chose to attack, thus he became the aggressor. "The problem with your logic is that Zimmerman didn't attack Martin." And you know this how? Oh....George said so.......[8\|] I mean besides what the killer said.

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/24/2012 12:00:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Simply being attacked is not cause for use of deadly force, despite your internet bravado fantasies. No one said it was. But in that attack, if the person being attacked fears for his life, he can shoot.

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/24/2012 12:03:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "The problem with your logic is that Zimmerman didn't attack Martin." And you know this how? Oh....George said so.......[8\|] I mean besides what the killer said. Just because you don't like who said it doesn't make it automatically untrue.

Owner59 -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/24/2012 12:13:54 AM)
Neh neh neh neh neh nehhhh.... back at ya......

DarqueMirror -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/24/2012 12:20:03 AM)
Ahhhh the mature response of someone who realizes the futility of their position.

DomKen -> RE: "Stand Your Ground" law under attack.... (4/24/2012 6:40:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Simply being attacked is not cause for use of deadly force, despite your internet bravado fantasies. No one said it was. But in that attack, if the person being attacked fears for his life, he can shoot. Not unless he wants to spend the rest of his life in jail. The standard is a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm not simple fear for his life.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875