Check out some similar questions!

excon · Mar 22, 2012, 06:15 AM

Hello again,

So, I'm watching Sean Hannity.. He's talking about the tragedy, and he's got two guys he's interviewing. ONE guy, like me, keeps on saying the problem is the LAW - NOT the cops...

Hannity wasn't having ANY of it... He said quite clearly, "I don't want this discussion to be about guns". But, when you're talking about LARGE animals with LONG noses and BIG ears, you'd HAVE to mention the word elephant.

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 22, 2012, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by excon

So, I'm thinking that the right wing wants to preserve the, "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you", law.

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" law, except maybe gang-bangers. Most of those aren't right-wingers.

excon · Mar 22, 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't know anyone who wants an "I'm gonna STAND MY GROUND, because I wanna shoot you" law

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know, Steve. If you HAVE a means of escape, but CHOOSE not to take it, as this law allows you to do, why else WOULD you "stand your ground"?

excon

talaniman · Mar 22, 2012, 07:02 AM

The problem IS the law AND the cops. They both need tweaking to eliminate abuse. But that's what happens when you get a special interest group to write the laws. They have to protect their gun owners whether they are irresponsible idiots or not. The NRA wants all the nuts to have the right to a gun, and shoot whomever they please.

And ex, its illegal in America for reasonable people to even look at Hannity. At least Rush is a clown, and makes no bones about it. And he is the leader of the right wing with Grover Norquist. Hannity thinks he is a journalist, and can't understand why we think he is a clown.

You need to change the batteries in your remote.

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2012, 07:06 AM

Let me know when this discussion gets serious again. I'm not sitting here writing that the left wants people unarmed and vulnerable to predators if they don't like the law .

speechlesstx · Mar 22, 2012, 07:49 AM

ZZZZzzzz...

excon · Mar 22, 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ZZZZzzzz...

Hello again, Steve:

Wake up and answer MY question.. I see that you've ignored it. I KNOW why.

Let me ask again, so you don't have to go look... If you HAVE a means of escape, and CHOOSE not to use it, as this law allows you to do, what reason could you possibly have, OTHER than you WANTED to shoot him, by "standing your ground"??

I'll be happy to hear what tom thinks too.. You DO know this is the CRUX of the law. I understand WHY you wouldn't want to engage me on it...

But, let me speculate a bit... Did you hear when Zimmerman said, "they always get away with it"?? With that simple statement, I believe HE personified the motive behind the law. It's to PUNISH. It's to PAY BACK. It's to get JUSTICE.

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 22, 2012, 08:17 AM

Ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2012, 08:33 AM

"He has no protection under my law," (former Sen. Durell Peaden)
The law allows for residents to use deadly force if they
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;
- Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Based on the clear language of the law ,Zimmerman doesn't have a case.

excon · Mar 22, 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, we've pretty much already agreed on everything. You're just fishing, and I'm not biting.

Hello again, Steve:

I've rebaited my hook..

Another phenomenon arising out of this case is the UPWELLING of anger and support for change on a NATIONAL basis. To WHAT do you attribute this to? Is it a referendum on the law? On blacks? On whites? On the south? On the cops? Anything??

Wake up!

excon

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2012, 08:42 AM

Here is the law as it applies to Zimmerman :
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So even if Martin did jump him ,Since Zimmerman was the stalker, he was not right under the law to use force .

speechlesstx · Mar 22, 2012, 09:11 AM

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.

excon · Mar 22, 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What UPWELLING is that besides the race baiters like Pitts? You'll have to be more specific.

Hello again, Steve:

If you SEE no upwelling, my directing you to it won't help.

excon

odinn7 · Mar 22, 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by excon

On the other site, I'm involved in a discussion about the Castle doctrine. I used the example of finding a kid in your living room with your TV in his arms. I asked whether he deserved to be SHOT. WITHOUT exception, and WITHOUT pause, and WITHOUT one iota of guilt, they ALL said YES. And, they BLAMED him for it. He was ASKING for it, they said... I've heard similar arguments made on THESE pages, no?

The "stand your ground" law, is nothing more than the Castle doctrine, in public.

excon

Not sure what site this is that you speak of but I'll take a shot (pun intended) at answering this. Is the kid armed? Do I fear for my life simply because he is holding my TV? If he's not armed, I'm not shooting. Castle Doctrine or not, I'm not in danger simply because he's holding my TV. Not only is it morally wrong to shoot in this case but, believe it or not, it's against the law. I can't shoot the guy only because he's in my house... I still need to be in danger.

I don't see where anyone on these pages is saying it would be OK to shoot someone just to do it.

paraclete · Mar 22, 2012, 08:57 PM

You can expect Zimmerman got a thrill, knocking off that kid, he can speak of it with pride after all he got to use his gun

Beardedsumo · Mar 23, 2012, 03:53 AM

Looks like this is going to go in another direction: the sheriff stepped down, the Feds moved in, and somebody "cleaned" the recording so you can hear racist epithets. So is this going to turn into another Tawana Brawley or another James Byrd?

tomder55 · Mar 23, 2012, 05:12 AM

... or another Duke Lacross or Richard Jewell with a rush to judgement ? I gave my opinion about this case .I think I'm right. But we don't know the whole story .

excon · Mar 23, 2012, 06:05 AM

Hello again,

I have a new found respect for Al Sharpton. His mother died yesterday, and he went to Florida anyway to lead a rally. He said his mother would have been ashamed of him if he didn't go.

There was some movement in the case. That would NOT have happened if heat wasn't brought, and Al Sharpton is bringing the heat..

Does that make it racial issue? Was it a racial issue from the git? I STILL say, that Zimmerman will get OFF, and it's the wording of the LAW that'll do it.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 23, 2012, 07:15 AM

Listening to Geraldo Rivera the last 2 days on radio. He's calling it the Hoodi murders and is saying that Martin was partly responsible for the murder by the way he was dressed. He's also condemning the 'million hoodi march' .
Wow .

excon · Mar 23, 2012, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Listening to Geraldo Rivera

Hello again, tom:

Well, it IS Geraldo.

But, I want to ask you this. Given the major, major pressure being brought on this case, why hasn't there been an arrest? I say, it's because everybody who examines the law, believes the law allows Zimmerman to do what he did.

Look. You DO understand that I hope I'm wrong. I'm not into murderer's.

excon