The shooting in Florida


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

This case has obviously made international news. The first story I saw on it (here in Australia) referred to Zimmerman as ‘Latino’ (and used the photo of him in orange) and used what appeared to be a fairly recent photo of Martin (he looked to be in his late teens).

In some later stories they used a much younger looking photo of Martin.

It was only in an article I read today that it referred to Zimmerman being ‘half white, half Latino’.

From the beginning the reporting here has emphasised (I would imagine somewhat accurately) that Martin was unarmed and significantly smaller / lighter than Zimmerman, and that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

FWIW.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lets apply the stand your ground law to the victim. (stand your ground is out in public, castle doctrine is your house)

He is in a place where he has every right to be.

He is being followed by a suspicious stranger.

Under Florida law Trayvon Martin has every right to stop and confront his pursuer and pound him.

Its good to point out the difference between stand your ground and Castle doctrine.

However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened. Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

As for Zimmermen, if they go after him you can bet they will throw the 9-1-1 call at him. He was told his intervention was not necessary and to wait for police but chose to ignore that advice.


Freehold DM wrote:
Shifty wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Under Florida law Trayvon Martin has every right to stop and confront his pursuer and pound him.

Are you seriously saying there is a law that states you can bash a person on the basis that you simply suspect they may be following you?
The way SYG is written, if you feel your life is in danger, you have the right to confront, as opposed to the responsibility to flee.

That's not what SYG says. Read the law again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!


Mothman wrote:

This case has obviously made international news. The first story I saw on it (here in Australia) referred to Zimmerman as ‘Latino’ (and used the photo of him in orange) and used what appeared to be a fairly recent photo of Martin (he looked to be in his late teens).

In some later stories they used a much younger looking photo of Martin.

It was only in an article I read today that it referred to Zimmerman being ‘half white, half Latino’.

From the beginning the reporting here has emphasised (I would imagine somewhat accurately) that Martin was unarmed and significantly smaller / lighter than Zimmerman, and that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

FWIW.

Been watching it on Japanese news myself.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!

I'd be interested in his viewpoints, actually.


Stand your ground means deadly force is authorized in self defense if there is reasonable belief of a threat, and you are not obligated to retreat.


Pan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lets apply the stand your ground law to the victim. (stand your ground is out in public, castle doctrine is your house)

He is in a place where he has every right to be.

He is being followed by a suspicious stranger.

Under Florida law Trayvon Martin has every right to stop and confront his pursuer and pound him.

Its good to point out the difference between stand your ground and Castle doctrine.

However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened. Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

As for Zimmermen, if they go after him you can bet they will throw the 9-1-1 call at him. He was told his intervention was not necessary and to wait for police but chose to ignore that advice.

Considering the dude was armed and indeed ended up killing him?


Obo the all seeing. wrote:

Stand your ground means deadly force is authorized in self defense if there is reasonable belief of a threat, and you are not obligated to retreat.

The restriction is that you are allowed only to meet force with force.


Considering the 48 page report the city of Sanford released on Zimmerman's 911 calls, I'd question his judgement on what constitutes grounds for calling an emergency line, let alone his judgement on when to use a handgun.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obo the all seeing. wrote:

Stand your ground means deadly force is authorized in self defense if there is reasonable belief of a threat, and you are not obligated to retreat.

The restriction is that you are allowed only to meet force with force.

Correct. I forgot to add the word deadly in front of the word threat. I should have just used copy and paste, but in any event we don't know if Trayvon saw the gun or not, and we never will most likely.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the first reports I read it wasn't so much "White racist kills black child" as it was "black child killed in gated community by neighborhood watch leader." The difference of course is racial profiling leads to kid's death vs racist kills black kid as the OP seems to have taken away from the media.

In the following days I began seeing more and more pictures of Treyvon. The more pictures I saw the younger he got. Stories about being a high school football player and how he was just buying candy for his brother when he was killed. Only picture I saw of Zimmermen came a day or two later and it was an orange jumpsuit mug shot. The stories made him out to sound like an overzealous borderline vigilante.

Stories started rolling out later about how Treyvon was a troublemaker at school. Another one stated that he had been caught with Marijuana. There was more focus on Zimmermen being beaten up when police arrived. Zimmrmen's granny was saying he cries himself to sleep each night since the shooting. His father defends his character.

Next day Obama makes a few comments about Treyvon would like his son if he had one. People start feeling bad for treyvon and wanting zimmermen to pay. Meanwhile Geraldo makes comments about how wearing a hoodie makes you look suspicious and that Treyvon drew attention to himself. People start thinking Treyvon is a Gansta and zimmermen really was just defending himself.

Anyways the point here is the media isn't telling a one sided story. They are telling a two sided story. Its all about character building or destroying. Its going to be one long nasty trial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meanwhile, if there was some concept of gun control then maybe none of this would have happened... oh wait, people have a 'right' to be armed.

Sovereign Court

Freehold DM wrote:
Pan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lets apply the stand your ground law to the victim. (stand your ground is out in public, castle doctrine is your house)

He is in a place where he has every right to be.

He is being followed by a suspicious stranger.

Under Florida law Trayvon Martin has every right to stop and confront his pursuer and pound him.

Its good to point out the difference between stand your ground and Castle doctrine.

However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened. Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

As for Zimmermen, if they go after him you can bet they will throw the 9-1-1 call at him. He was told his intervention was not necessary and to wait for police but chose to ignore that advice.

Considering the dude was armed and indeed ended up killing him?

We do not know Treyvon's side of the story. I am just saying you cant go and "pound" somebody because they are following you. It has to be more serious than that. It appears this situation hit that point and how much Treyvon or Zimmermen had to do with it is what a trial ,if there is one, will have to figure out.

Sovereign Court

Shifty wrote:
Meanwhile, if there was some concept of gun control then maybe none of this would have happened... oh wait, people have a 'right' to be armed.

Are you saying gun control would have avoided a death? Things may have gone the other way in this story we just don't know at this point. Choosing to carry a firearm comes with responsibility. There are consequences for negligence of that responsibility.

Liberty's Edge

TL;DR

I just want to point out that a person isn't proven innocent in court, they're innocent until proven guilty. (Which isn't actually correct, they're not guilty until proven guilty, and not guilty doesn't mean the same thing as innocent, though we do still use the term presumption of innocence. Anyways, what I'm trying to point out is that a trial is about rather or not someone is guilty, not rather or not they are innocent.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Meanwhile, if there was some concept of gun control then maybe none of this would have happened... oh wait, people have a 'right' to be armed.
Are you saying gun control would have avoided a death? Things may have gone the other way in this story we just don't know at this point. Choosing to carry a firearm comes with responsibility. There are consequences for negligence of that responsibility.

Not to mention that making guns illegal will just mean that they are only in the hands of criminals. That's NOT going to make guns safer.

And even if we were to magically eliminate guns, crimes with knives would increase.

Gun control is just so obviously wrong headed it doesn't deserve a serious response.

Plus, seeing as how I live in a small town in the Rockies, my car is next to a large garbage container, my apartment manager has not been able to get me a new place to park, bears and mountain lions have been known to come down from time to time, I have to leave for work before the sun comes up, and I have a serious back injury, a gun would just make me safer.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obo the all seeing. wrote:

Many people are not seeing it as a white guy shot a black guy.

I don't think that's true and I'm sure that if we were to do a poll, we'd find that most news paper articles on the situation (especially at the beginning when they could still hide his Hispanic roots) referred to his race (albeit incorrectly).

Having grown up in Florida I think it pertinent to point out that "Hispanic" doesn't mean the same thing there that it means everywhere else. Florida has a great many "white" Hispanics and quite a few whites with Hispanic names.

I live in NC now, Hispanic means Mexican here.

In Florida, Hispanic and Latino have very different connotations.
Cuban Americans are NOT Latino.
Cuban Americans that's families came over before Castro would look at you askance if you implied that they weren't white.

I don't know what Zimmerman's Hispanic side is derived from, but it's very likely Cuban given that Sanford is North Central Florida. The wealthier the Cubans were the farther north they went. In Florida money=white.

That is a far more likely root to this than anything else. The media has played games with coverage surely, they need ratings. But the "Stand your Ground" law has had abuses in Florida prior to this, so that this has blown up is not a surprise. Zimmerman may be a patsy or he may be a killer. Whatever the case he was in the wrong place, and didn't have to be.

Florida's racial politics are unique and they will demand a trial.


zagnabbit wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obo the all seeing. wrote:

Many people are not seeing it as a white guy shot a black guy.

I don't think that's true and I'm sure that if we were to do a poll, we'd find that most news paper articles on the situation (especially at the beginning when they could still hide his Hispanic roots) referred to his race (albeit incorrectly).

Having grown up in Florida I think it pertinent to point out that "Hispanic" doesn't mean the same thing there that it means everywhere else. Florida has a great many "white" Hispanics and quite a few whites with Hispanic names.

I live in NC now, Hispanic means Mexican here.

In Florida, Hispanic and Latino have very different connotations.
Cuban Americans are NOT Latino.
Cuban Americans that's families came over before Castro would look at you askance if you implied that they weren't white.

I don't know what Zimmerman's Hispanic side is derived from, but it's very likely Cuban given that Sanford is North Central Florida. The wealthier the Cubans were the farther north they went. In Florida money=white.

That is a far more likely root to this than anything else. The media has played games with coverage surely, they need ratings. But the "Stand your Ground" law has had abuses in Florida prior to this, so that this has blown up is not a surprise. Zimmerman may be a patsy or he may be a killer. Whatever the case he was in the wrong place, and didn't have to be.

Florida's racial politics are unique and they will demand a trial.

Interesting. Thank you for your insights on this. As a black man whose family comes from Panama and different parts of the Caribbean before that, I'm also embroiled in the weirdness of where I fall on the hispanic scale(which is *technically* nowhere, but several sides of my family have a distinct hispanic flavor to them where it's not pseudo-british)


Darkwing Duck wrote:


Not to mention that making guns illegal will just mean that they are only in the hands of criminals. That's NOT going to make guns safer.

No but it makes the general public safer, and just might solve the problem you had here - "no gun = no shooting". The whole 'zomg the criminals!111!!!BBQ!!!' shrill cry is just alarmist nonsense. Which criminal here had the gun?

Darkwing Duck wrote:
And even if we were to magically eliminate guns, crimes with knives would increase.

Already posted about this above. Fixed that problem too.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Gun control is just so obviously wrong headed it doesn't deserve a serious response.

Because you can't field one?

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Plus, seeing as how I live in a small town in the Rockies, my car is next to a large garbage container, my apartment manager has not been able to get me a new place to park, bears and mountain lions have been known to come down from time to time, I have to leave for work before the sun comes up, and I have a serious back injury, a gun would just make me safer.

Right. And proper gun control laws (like we have over here) would have you still toting a gun like a good ol' boy on account of bears and mountain lions. Surely you can see that living with bears and mountains lions is a significantly different scenario than living in the burbs?

Which part of 'control' are you having an issue with?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!

I learned that I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue - does that count?


Sebastian wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!
I learned that I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue - does that count?

Yes, yes it does.


Pan wrote:


However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened.

No, he doesn't need to prove there was no other way out. All he needs to do is prove that it was reasonable to conclude he had to protect himself, or to prevent a felony, such as robbery or kidnapping. If someone follows me for 5 blocks at night, running, I'm thinking robbery.

Quote:
Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

Were Trayvons actions sufficiently suspicious to qualify as reasonable? No.

Were Zimmermans? YES. The guys following you for.. what... 5 blocks? Even running after you? What else is someone supposed to conclude he's running after you FOR?

Treyvon is not obligated to keep running. If he sees a good, defensible spot to have a confrontation he can stop there and have it.

The point here is that this doesn't have to be a case of racism vs self defense. Self defense laws if anything work AGAINST Zimmerman, Not for him.


Sebastian wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!
I learned that I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue - does that count?

Do you like gladiator movies?


First, I take offense at your use of the term 'good ol' boy'.

Second, most people who talk about gun control are talking about nation-wide repealing the right to arms. Gun conrol laws already exist.

Third, the Zimmerman/Martin case is not the only one where guns were involved. Do you really need me to list cases where criminals used guns?

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Somebody call Sebastian the Pony, because with all this internet legal expertise on this thread, well......HE might actually learn him something!!!
I learned that I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue - does that count?

It’s always the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.


Shifty wrote:
Already posted about this above. Fixed that problem too.

We have another amendment in the way of that solution as well: You can't just stop people and search them without probable cause, and they can refuse you. "Terry frisks" work on inner city kids with no lawyers but that's about it.


Shifty wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


Not to mention that making guns illegal will just mean that they are only in the hands of criminals. That's NOT going to make guns safer.

No but it makes the general public safer, and just might solve the problem you living with bears and mountains lions is a significantly different scenario than living in the burbs?

Which part of 'control' are you having an issue with?

Gun control is way off topic here.

Florida gun laws are incredibly lenient, only Texas makes them easier to buy or carry. Florida is actually closer to offshore manufacturers in the Bahamas and the Carribean Islands so illegally imported firearms are plentiful. Even a "zero tolerance" policy on handguns would have little effect given the number of Bahamian Tec 9s floating around South Fla.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:


However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened.

No, he doesn't need to prove there was no other way out. All he needs to do is prove that it was reasonable to conclude he had to protect himself, or to prevent a felony, such as robbery or kidnapping. If someone follows me for 5 blocks at night, running, I'm thinking robbery.

Quote:
Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

Were Trayvons actions sufficiently suspicious to qualify as reasonable? No.

Were Zimmermans? YES. The guys following you for.. what... 5 blocks? Even running after you? What else is someone supposed to conclude he's running after you FOR?

Treyvon is not obligated to keep running. If he sees a good, defensible spot to have a confrontation he can stop there and have it.

The point here is that this doesn't have to be a case of racism vs self defense. Self defense laws if anything work AGAINST Zimmerman, Not for him.

Trayvon was allowed only to meet force with force. Zimmerman, if Trayvon had assaulted him and was beating him, may have thought his life was in danger, so was experiencing deadly force. Unless Zimmerman applied force to Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't experiencing deadly force.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Third, the Zimmerman/Martin case is not the only one where guns were involved. Do you really need me to list cases where criminals used guns?

Quite a lot of them no doubt; and that would include a bunch of previously law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying firearms who have reacted poorly and ended up committing a homicide, like our mate Zimm may well have done.

Criminals always use guns in gun crime.

BNW wrote:
We have another amendment in the way of that solution as well: You can't just stop people and search them without probable cause, and they can refuse you.

Oh we can refuse too, but it tends to go pretty bad from there if you do and it turns out you had something to hide. Once they have reasonable grounds for suspicion you may be detained, and once you are detained... well...

zagnabbit wrote:
Gun control is way off topic here.

He wasn't killed with a banana bro.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Already posted about this above. Fixed that problem too.
We have another amendment in the way of that solution as well: You can't just stop people and search them without probable cause, and they can refuse you. "Terry frisks" work on inner city kids with no lawyers but that's about it.

Sadly this is what this case is about.

Poor kids all over the country get screwed by the law because they can't afford lawyers. The Martin kid would have been much safer as a white kid in a $30k car, wearing a hoodie and carrying flat screens out of houses in that neighborhood.


Shifty wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Third, the Zimmerman/Martin case is not the only one where guns were involved. Do you really need me to list cases where criminals used guns?
Quite a lot of them no doubt; and that would include a bunch of previously law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying firearms who have reacted poorly and ended up committing a homicide, like our mate Zimm may well have done.

It would also include a bunch that weren't previously law-abiding.

BNW wrote:
We have another amendment in the way of that solution as well: You can't just stop people and search them without probable cause, and they can refuse you.

Oh we can refuse too, but it tends to go pretty bad from there if you do and it turns out you had something to hide. Once they have reasonable grounds for suspicion you may be detained, and once you are detained... well...

zagnabbit wrote:
Gun control is way off topic here.
He wasn't killed with a banana bro.

In our country, we still hold on to the myth of personal freedom. We haven't given up on that myth, like your people have. It may have something to do with the fact that we've neverbeen occupied by a foreign government.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwingduck wrote:
Trayvon was allowed only to meet force with force.

Patently, objectively, and obviously false.

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.

Imminent. In the future. About to occur. Has not occured yet. Trayvon does not need to wait for force to be used, especially if he's only going to use his fist. He only needs to be reasonable in his belief that force WILL be used. Being followed at night makes that belief reasonable.

Quote:
Zimmerman, if Trayvon had assaulted him and was beating him, may have thought his life was in danger, so was experiencing deadly force. Unless Zimmerman applied force to Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't experiencing deadly force.

Fists are pretty much the definition of non lethal force. If you run someone down at night and they get the jump on you take your beating like a man and put an ice pack on it tomorrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:


In our country, we still hold on to the myth of personal freedom. We haven't given up on that myth, like your people have. It may have something to do with the fact that we've neverbeen occupied by a foreign government.

Yeah, Shifty, why do you hate our freedom? Was it because Australia was occupied by a foreign government for so long?


Thank you Zagnabbit. I was reading the whole discussion and waiting for somebody to point that out. Latino does not always mean darker complexion.

What's more important than Zimmerman's ancestry are his comments on the phone. Racial slurs while on the phone with a 911 operator seem pretty convincing evidence of racism to me.

Even if a racist, it doesn't mean that Zimmerman was wrong and Martin wasn't engaging in illegal activity. It does hurt his credibility though.

After reading the articles and the histories of both of them, what seems to have happened to me is that a zealous neighborhood watchman followed a teenager whom he perceived as likely to be up to illegal activity. The teenager saw an armed older man following him with a gun and reacted out of fear with some kind of confrontation. Maybe Martin hid around the corner and hit Zimmerman on the back of the head when he came by. Maybe not. In any case, the two got into a fight, where Zimmerman at some point shot Martin.

I predict what will happen is Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter and serve a reduced sentence with community service and probation.

Does this remind anybody else of the Berhnard Goetz case?


A little, but, IIRC, Goetz was straight up mugged and, later, shot one of his assailants as he was bleeding out on the ground. Like that recent pharmacist in Oklahoma.

Granted, I think he envisioned himself as pulling a one-man vigilante stake-out, but, again, IIRC, he was mugged before he started shooting.

EDIT: What it reminds me of a little more was the killing of Emmett Till back in the '50s.

Visiting black kid whistles at a white woman, gets stomped by the Klan.

Here we have a visiting black kid (and up here in New England, we refer to everyone as a "kid" until they're about 55) in a gated community and wearing a hoodie, who might have enjoyed Skittles and weed (they go so well together!), getting blown away by a possibly demented, most likely bigoted neighborhood watch volunteer.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:


However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened.

No, he doesn't need to prove there was no other way out. All he needs to do is prove that it was reasonable to conclude he had to protect himself, or to prevent a felony, such as robbery or kidnapping. If someone follows me for 5 blocks at night, running, I'm thinking robbery.

Quote:
Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

Were Trayvons actions sufficiently suspicious to qualify as reasonable? No.

Were Zimmermans? YES. The guys following you for.. what... 5 blocks? Even running after you? What else is someone supposed to conclude he's running after you FOR?

Treyvon is not obligated to keep running. If he sees a good, defensible spot to have a confrontation he can stop there and have it.

The point here is that this doesn't have to be a case of racism vs self defense. Self defense laws if anything work AGAINST Zimmerman, Not for him.

Trayvon was allowed only to meet force with force. Zimmerman, if Trayvon had assaulted him and was beating him, may have thought his life was in danger, so was experiencing deadly force. Unless Zimmerman applied force to Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't

experiencing deadly force.

If I were in Trayvon's situation, followed for several blocks at a full sprint, I'd have assumed I was in jeopardy.

At which point I would have warned Zimmerman off, if he didn't relent. I'd have shot him. The difference being that 17 year olds don't have CC permits. Not even in Fla.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:


However with stand your ground you still need to prove you could not avoid the conflict and your life was being threatened.

No, he doesn't need to prove there was no other way out. All he needs to do is prove that it was reasonable to conclude he had to protect himself, or to prevent a felony, such as robbery or kidnapping. If someone follows me for 5 blocks at night, running, I'm thinking robbery.

Quote:
Simply being followed by a suspicious dude isnt enough to throw down with him.

Were Trayvons actions sufficiently suspicious to qualify as reasonable? No.

Were Zimmermans? YES. The guys following you for.. what... 5 blocks? Even running after you? What else is someone supposed to conclude he's running after you FOR?

Treyvon is not obligated to keep running. If he sees a good, defensible spot to have a confrontation he can stop there and have it.

The point here is that this doesn't have to be a case of racism vs self defense. Self defense laws if anything work AGAINST Zimmerman, Not for him.

Trayvon was allowed only to meet force with force. Zimmerman, if Trayvon had assaulted him and was beating him, may have thought his life was in danger, so was experiencing deadly force. Unless Zimmerman applied force to Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't experiencing deadly force.

So if some is confronting you, and you don't think they have good intentions what do you do? Being 140 pounds I doubt he could have restrained Zimmerman. So you knock him out. How? Punch him in the face.

You don't have to wait for someone to make the first swing. You being followed and feeling in danger is enough to take an attacker out. If that were not the case then people who have killed in self-defense would all have bruises. I am sure if you get cornered by someone that outweighs you by at least 50 pounds you are not going to let them strike you first.


Exactly.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


In our country, we still hold on to the myth of personal freedom. We haven't given up on that myth, like your people have. It may have something to do with the fact that we've neverbeen occupied by a foreign government.
Yeah, Shifty, why do you hate our freedom? Was it because Australia was occupied by a foreign government for so long?

Damn those foreign occupiers! They made me hate FREEDOM!!


Wait, I thought Australia was a foreign government.

Why is everyone hatin' on my sweet freedoms.
Like a free sandwich after my 5 th purchase.
Or complimentary continental breakfast.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Fists are pretty much the definition of non lethal force. If you run someone down at night and they get the jump on you take your beating like a man and put an ice pack on it tomorrow.

Not in Florida. You may have forgot the kid that was tracked down by bullies after getting off the bus. He was being hit by fists and kicked. He tried to leave but the bullies kept coming. The kid used a pocket knife and fatally stabbed his assailant. It was ruled he had followed Stand your ground.


Getting assaulted by several people is different, and fist are pretty much nonlethal until you knock someone out, and keep swinging anyway. At that point you are not longer defending yourself, and trying to bring undue harm to someone.


That may have been a numbers thing.

If I'm getting beat up at 4 to 1 odds I can justify more force than the reverse.
Conversely if 1 guy attacks myself and 3 friends, we are at risk, legally, if we seriously harm him.

I'm not a criminal lawyer or in law enforcement, so I have no idea what the criteria is either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


Not in Florida. You may have forgot the kid that was tracked down by bullies after getting off the bus. He was being hit by fists and kicked. He tried to leave but the bullies kept coming. The kid used a pocket knife and fatally stabbed his assailant. It was ruled he had followed Stand your ground.

Stand your ground didn't enter into that one, he ran. The person that died was the clear aggressor.

In this case, Zimmerman is the aggressor. He ran after Trayvon.

Trayvon gets the ability to defend himself until Trayvon does something illegal.

If Trayvon attacks Zimmerman with his fists he is doing so LEGALLY.

Zimmerman has no call for self defense with a lethal weapon because he is both the initial aggressor and responding to a non lethal threat. Courts may let one or the other slide, but not both.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pan wrote:


Not in Florida. You may have forgot the kid that was tracked down by bullies after getting off the bus. He was being hit by fists and kicked. He tried to leave but the bullies kept coming. The kid used a pocket knife and fatally stabbed his assailant. It was ruled he had followed Stand your ground.

Stand your ground didn't enter into that one, he ran. The person that died was the clear aggressor.

In this case, Zimmerman is the aggressor. He ran after Trayvon.

Trayvon gets the ability to defend himself until Trayvon does something illegal.

If Trayvon attacks Zimmerman with his fists he is doing so LEGALLY.

Zimmerman has no call for self defense with a lethal weapon because he is both the initial aggressor and responding to a non lethal threat. Courts may let one or the other slide, but not both.

I agree with what you are saying here. I am just talking hypothetically. Some one mentioned that if you are being followed you can just go ahead and throw down. Calling for help, calling for the police, or running away are more reasonable. If the follower pursues or threatens you then defend yourself. There are a number of things you can try to do before attacking the person following you if you are able.


Pan wrote:
Some one mentioned that if you are being followed you can just go ahead and throw down. Calling for help, calling for the police, or running away are more reasonable.

Its arguable if that's more reasonable. It certainty isn't the law.

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.

If you can reasonably conclude that 1) you are about to be aassaulted and 2) throwing down is your best bet then you do not have to retreat.

Quote:
If the follower pursues or threatens you then defend yourself. There are a number of things you can try to do before attacking the person following you if you are able.

But nothing you Legally have to do in florida. If someone says "I'm going to kick your ass" and starts coming towards me i legally do not have to try to leave in florida. As long as my response is non lethal I can stay exactly where I am and deck the guy in the face. I can even throw the first punch.


They are more reasonable options but under stand your ground you don't have to run. It seems that Trayvon initially tried to create distance, but George was not trying to have it.

Trayvon was close to the house he was trying to get to, or so I have heard. If I was him there is no way I lead that guy back to where I live.

In any event I would never expect to be able to keep following someone without provoking a response. If George does not have that much common sense then he does not need to have a gun.


My understanding is that young Mr. Martin did attempt to evade Mr. Zimmerman.

What Big Norse Wolf is saying is that Martin was well within his rights to defend himself. He did so with his fists, all he had.

All of the hullabaloo about this case is in relation to the weak and dysfunctional racial issues in Florida and central Florida especially. More over there are people outside of the region involved who wish to use it as a litmus test for gun control, police authority, stand your ground's applicability and racial relations on a national level. Then of course there is the media which will milk this unfortunate event for every penny and second it's worth.

I have some lawyers in the immediate family, who practice in Florida (though not in the Sanford area). The 2 I've discussed this with are of the opinion that there is enough evidence to show a lack of due diligence by the local police. It may prove that the police were not negligent but that the somewhat controversial law puts too much burden on law enforcement to determine guilt or criminal intent.

What is interesting about this case from a legal perspective is that the "Stand your Ground" clause is applicable to both individuals at some level. It's a legal and philosophical puzzle that members of the legal profession, especially in Florida, are pondering and dissecting.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Darkwing Duck wrote:


In our country, we still hold on to the myth of personal freedom. We haven't given up on that myth, like your people have. It may have something to do with the fact that we've neverbeen occupied by a foreign government.

I've been watching this thread very closely, and I commend everyone on their relative civility so far.

But this sort of obnoxious nationalistic baiting has no place on the Paizo forums.

This forum welcomes gamers of all political opinions and all nationalities.

Let's not get into telling each other what their countries have "given up on," please, and thinly veiled slights about what countries have or haven't been occupied by a foreign government are not helpful.

Back to the off-topic at hand, please.

51 to 100 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The shooting in Florida All Messageboards