Check out some similar questions!

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground...he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.

Hello again, tom:

I WISH that were true, but it ain't. Oh, if you take THAT moment of time, you're correct... But, in the NEXT moment of time, he could be afraid for his life and shoot in "self defense".. With NOBODY to say otherwise, the cops hands are tied.

The law is faulty. Previously, being cornered meant there were PHYSICAL barriers that could be MEASURED. With NO barriers, there is ONLY the word of the shooter, IF the victim is dead..

I say again, the law is faulty. VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY. It gives a murderer the RIGHT to kill IF he has a chip on his shoulder, even IF my friend Odinn says otherwise.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 06:32 AM

Today's news is that there was a phone call between Trayvon and his girl friend while this was going down. Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being pursued for no reason.

Now if you are saying the law needs some tweeking ;that's possible and I know the State legislature is already reviewing the law. The wording of the law has to match the intent . The intent is not to have some vigilante provoking a confrontation. The law is meant for real self defense.

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The law is meant for real self defense.

Hello again, tom:

Oh, I understand WHY right wingers passed the law.. It's that when they pass laws based on POLITICAL considerations, instead of real life issues, bad stuff happens... And BAD stuff IS happening...

The old law on self defense worked PERFECTLY. You COULD not claim you shot somebody in self defense IF you had a means of escape. It's TRUE. It's SIMPLE. It's PROVABLE. It's UNDERSTOOD. It DIDN'T need strengthening... The ONLY reason a person WOULDN'T run away, IF he could, would be to CONFRONT his pursuer. You cannot tell me that a confrontation such as that would be based on FEAR..

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 21, 2012, 07:08 AM

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry. Dude, leftists can be very, very mean. They are in fact responsible for most domestic terrorism in spite of what the SPLC says. I need my gun to protect myself from libs who wish me harm you know.

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry.

Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

talaniman · Mar 21, 2012, 07:25 AM

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.

As to the law itself, backed by the NRA, this new law has caused confusion among law enforcement, and opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and misuse. This case is but one of many. The number of justifiable homicides have tripled since Florida enacted this law, and that alone has to cause a closer look at the law, or the way law enforcement goes about enforcing it.

I mean if this guy or any other for that matter, gets away with murder, then SOMETHING is terribly wrong with the law. Its just not FAIR to my way of thinking. I fully recognize the intent of the law, but the practical application of it provides NO justice, or protection for the citizens as a whole.

speechlesstx · Mar 21, 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

Dude, I have never shot anyone. I'm guessing most right-wingers with the exception of Cheney have never shot anyone either. But you know the law is not a license to murder and that was never its intent. And we all seem to agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong and if the law needs to be tweaked then so be it. So what exactly do you have left to whine about?

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being persued for no reason.

Hello guys:

Nobody disagrees with the above assessments.. After reviewing the law, I'm even sure the COPS agree with the above assessments... AND, I'm even sure that the FEDS and the GRAND JURY will come to those conclusions, too.

The problem is the LAW. In the final analysis, when Zimmerman takes the stand and says that he feared for his life, in THAT moment of time, there's NOBODY to say he didn't. The law allows him to DO that very thing. Prosecutors won't even bring charges...

Now, maybe the feds can charge Zimmerman with a violation of Trayvons civil rights. THAT would be a great legal approach.. But, the law ties the hands of EVERYBODY in Florida.

excon

PS> (edited) There is some talk of racial epithets on the tape, and I heard him say "they always get away with it".. Maybe THAT'LL be enough to show intent and charges brought.

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 08:38 AM

Nah you shoot someone you have to be accountable. But we already agree that if the wording of the law needs to be revised ,then the legislature should do so.

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.

speechlesstx · Mar 21, 2012, 08:41 AM

And I want to know why NK can post the word sh*t without the asterisk and you deleted Cheney's first name? Are you kidding me?

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.

Hello again, tom:

At THAT MOMENT in time, you don't know what happened.. Even after being followed, you don't know whether Trayvon turned on Zimmerman and attacked him. THAT moment in time is what the law addresses...

I UNDERSTAND you want to take the TOTALITY of events to make your case... I WANT to, too. It would make SENSE. But, the law is clear. I think you want to believe it because it'll vindicate the law, or the NRA, or the Republicans who wrote it. I don't know.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 09:49 AM

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.

Hello again, tom:

Nope..

As I said earlier, being cornered can be MEASURED and PROVEN.. There would be PHYSICAL objects preventing escape... Out in the open there's NOTHING preventing a person from RUNNING AWAY, and you couldn't claim there was. Under the old law, he'd be convicted in a heartbeat.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 10:11 AM

See you don't know that as a fact. Not that I want to defend Zimmerman ;but he has the facial wounds to prove he was in a physical struggle .

Now I think the evidence is the only thing that matters here . The evidence points to the fact that he initiated the confrontation.

Without that ;and if the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened... then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.

excon · Mar 21, 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Without that ;and if the the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened ....then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.

Hello again, tom:

NO, he couldn't. I don't know WHY you argue with me. The old law was SIMPLE. If there IS a means of escape, it MUST be taken. That's IT. It's no more difficult than that.

IF you're OUT in the open, and you're being attacked, you MUST RUN. If you're on the ground, and he's standing over you, and you have NO MEANS OF ESCAPE, you can shoot.. Other than that, you MUST RUN.

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 10:33 AM

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.

yes I am . Zimmerman had a bloody nose ;was bleeding from the back of his head ,and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. That is evidence that could possibly lead to the fact that he had been over powered and had no means of escape.

That's all I know of the physical evidence . The other evidence leads one to believe that he was the aggressor . That is what the grand jury will weigh. Whatever political perceptions you have about the law will probably not be the determining factor in the end.

tomder55 · Mar 21, 2012, 10:37 AM

Deleted

odinn7 · Mar 21, 2012, 05:44 PM

I have to add more. I read up on the laws and it turns out that Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are 2 slightly different laws. Here, in my state, we have the Castle Doctrine law which states what I had said earlier. The Stand Your Ground law takes that one step further by allowing you the same defense outside of your home, vehicle, and property. No need to retreat at all really. That does seem somewhat extreme to me... at least on the surface.

I have to say, if someone violently confronted me and I felt I had no choice, I would do what I had to... law or no law. Protect myself first, worry about the law second. Looking at it a different way though, I would not be looking for a confrontation just to test that out. This idiot made a 911 call and was told to stop following the kid and to stay in his truck. The police were on their way. He got out anyway and caused the confrontation. The law does not allow this. Yes, he is allowed to defend himself, but he caused this. There is the 911 call as evidence that it all could have been avoided. That is the key and anyone responsible that does carry a gun, would have avoided the confrontation. I am thinking that because of that 911 call, he will be prosecuted because it shows he went looking for trouble. The law is Stand Your Ground... to defend yourself. It's not Confront And Kill... the law does need a little tweaking but I do think that because he made that call, it shows he could have avoided all of this... and for that, I think he is going to face charges.

talaniman · Mar 22, 2012, 05:25 AM

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

tomder55 · Mar 22, 2012, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

Agree... although besides an arrest ,which we know didn't happen ; and a statement from Zimmerman ,which we know happened... we really don't know what else the police have done in this case .