| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2012 07:17:17 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
We know the facts. Zimmerman alive. Trayvon dead. What more do you need to think a trial is necessary? |
This is a very telling statement regarding your view on this matter.
1. There are more facts to consider than these two.
2. An arrest/prosecution/trial is not done to discover guilt or innocence. That decision is made by the Prosecutors Office based on their evidence. They prosecute those they believe (and the evidence supports) are guilty of a crime.
3. A trial is a formal proceeding whereby the Prosecutor presents their evidence of guilt while the defense tries to dismiss/refute that evidence.
4. As of this posting - I am not yet aware that the Prosecutor has the evidence to pursue a charge against Zimmerman. Perhaps that will change. |
I disagree, Flash - of course the police and then a prosecutors office will normally decide whether there is evidence of a crime having been committed and then if there is a reasonable chance of conviction. It seems to me that under Florida law a person can kill someone and then claim self defence, believing their life is in danger and the police are not then obliged to pursue the matter any further. The Martin/Zimmerman case proves how dangerous such a law can be - I've heard it described as a vigilante's charter. Escapetooz's comment does not in itself show bias, I think the argument is that such a serious event - murder/manslaughter/justified homicide, whatever - should be examined at a higher level than the shooter's say-so and the local law enforcement's acceptance of the facts, and this is without making any assumption of guilt on any side.
Your point 4 is possibly true but if the police investigation starts from an acceptance of a self-defence argument, then don't you think that will affect how thorough the collection of evidence will be?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2012 08:36:46 AM · #327 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
We know the facts. Zimmerman alive. Trayvon dead. What more do you need to think a trial is necessary? |
This is a very telling statement regarding your view on this matter.
1. There are more facts to consider than these two.
2. An arrest/prosecution/trial is not done to discover guilt or innocence. That decision is made by the Prosecutors Office based on their evidence. They prosecute those they believe (and the evidence supports) are guilty of a crime.
3. A trial is a formal proceeding whereby the Prosecutor presents their evidence of guilt while the defense tries to dismiss/refute that evidence.
4. As of this posting - I am not yet aware that the Prosecutor has the evidence to pursue a charge against Zimmerman. Perhaps that will change. |
I disagree, Flash - of course the police and then a prosecutors office will normally decide whether there is evidence of a crime having been committed and then if there is a reasonable chance of conviction. It seems to me that under Florida law a person can kill someone and then claim self defence, believing their life is in danger and the police are not then obliged to pursue the matter any further. The Martin/Zimmerman case proves how dangerous such a law can be - I've heard it described as a vigilante's charter. Escapetooz's comment does not in itself show bias, I think the argument is that such a serious event - murder/manslaughter/justified homicide, whatever - should be examined at a higher level than the shooter's say-so and the local law enforcement's acceptance of the facts, and this is without making any assumption of guilt on any side.
Your point 4 is possibly true but if the police investigation starts from an acceptance of a self-defence argument, then don't you think that will affect how thorough the collection of evidence will be? |
Ray - appreciate your thoughts on this. One item that seems to be getting lost in this discussion regarding the "stand your ground" law is that the law does not give anyone the right to claim self defense and the matter is over. The stand your ground law is based on the "Castle Doctrine" originally founded in Europe that basically says that when under assault one does not have to flee one's home and has the right to defend one's sacntuary against a deadly threat or one that reasonably could result in crippling injury. The Stand your ground law - simply takes this principle and applies it to wherever you are - meaning your car, motorbike, walking in the park, at the mall, etc. The criteria for using deadly force - specifically that one must be under imminent and deadly/crippling danger still applies. Therefore, for Mr. Zimmerman to use the Stand your Ground law as a defense of his action, then the criteria for the use of deadly force must still apply. Thus, either the evidence was such at the scene to provide the responding officers with the conclusion that "yes - deadly force was justified" OR the responding officers are so inept and incompetent that they had no sense of what the criteria was for the use of deadly force.
Now many here and else where are in fact claiming incompetence on the part of law enforcement. Maybe that is the csae - maybe not. But what certainly is NOT the case, is that the "Stand your Ground" law allows or authorizes anyone to use deadly force without justification. The media frenzy and the inaccurate portrayal of the application of the stand your ground law has resulted in much confusion and erroneous conclusions on the part of many commentators.
I have read nearly every story on this case in both liberal and conservative media and I am appalled at the lack of understanding of the Stand your Ground law as it applies to self defense. I would have expected more competency on the part of journalists and editors.
Further - not every state has a "castle doctrine" for the home - requiring you to flee if an intruder enters. Some states like Florida, have extended the scope of the castle doctrine to encase you wherever you are.
I will try to find a link on Castle Doctrine law.
Castle Doctrine - Wikipedia
"Conditions of use
Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.
Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the homeIn some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force"
If Mr Zimmerman did in fact cause the altercation either by pursuing Trayvon or escalating a verbal confrontation to one of deadly force, then Zimmerman is in clear violation of the stand your ground law. Thus the media reports and even those from Law Enfiorcement that initially stated the SYG law as their reason for not arresting Zimmerman - are wrong.
Message edited by author 2012-04-04 09:22:47. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 12:44:10 PM · #328 |
Here is a Basic comparison of self defense vs stand your ground, plus commentary from various legal professors.
Thought this might help clarify some mis-understandings. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 09:54:02 AM · #329 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 03:33:00 PM · #330 |
For those of you who think "guns are bad" or would wait for the police or think that shooting in self defense never happens...here's the reality in my state:
Flint, MI #1 in violent crime BTW - Detroit is close behind in second place.
A "Digest" of stories on justifiable homocide
This guy is a photographer who shot an armed intruder... the series of articles isn't over, but in particular, read the statement from the DA.
I'm simply not willing to passively let my family be the next Petit family. If you're willing to "play the odds" that it won't be you or your loved ones, or you believe that people willing to commit such crimes can be reasoned with or that you can defend yourself with your hands/feet/knife/baseball bat against an armed intruder, that's your choice. I hope for your sake that you're right. I believe luck favors the prepared.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 03:39:29 PM · #331 |
| I would like to here the stastics of how many people are accidentally killed by firearms, vs how many killed with firearms stolen from legal owners, vs how many killed in self defence. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 03:57:03 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would like to here the stastics of how many people are accidentally killed by firearms, vs how many killed with firearms stolen from legal owners, vs how many killed in self defence. |
Why? What would the point be?
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 07:23:10 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would like to here the stastics of how many people are accidentally killed by firearms, vs how many killed with firearms stolen from legal owners, vs how many killed in self defence. |
Why? What would the point be? |
It might provide some indication that firearms can be the cause and not necessarily the solution to a problem.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:58:08 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would like to here the stastics of how many people are accidentally killed by firearms, vs how many killed with firearms stolen from legal owners, vs how many killed in self defence. |
Why? What would the point be? |
It might provide some indication that firearms can be the cause and not necessarily the solution to a problem.
Ray |
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
A person who uses a gun can cause problems, so can a guy driving like an asshole, or a guy with a couple of bricks in a sack. Do you blame cars for traffic deaths or bricks for someone getting their head caved in?
If you want to look at a statistic that means something, a better analysis might be one that compares the murder rate of people who decide not to defend themselves vs those who do. Unfortunately, the FBI statistics that everyone likes to cite evidently grossly underreport incidents of killings done in self defense. Most estimates say that the FBI figures represent 1/3 or less of the justifiable killings. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 05:40:41 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 10:58:40 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
This goes back to the phrase..."guns dont kill people...people kill people"
You are correct about the nuclear weapons...But would you give a murderer a gun...The countries that want nukes are enemies of everyone and have a large possibility of using them against their enemies. For example: North Korea...they are essentially enemies of the world excluding china...and China doesn't want them to have them. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 11:40:43 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You are correct about the nuclear weapons...But would you give a murderer a gun...The countries that want nukes are enemies of everyone and have a large possibility of using them against their enemies. For example: North Korea...they are essentially enemies of the world excluding china...and China doesn't want them to have them. |
We DO give murderers guns! That's what we're talking about! Anyone who is really determined to have a gun, in America, can get one.
I find it wildly ironic that you folks who are bound and determined to "protect our right" to bear arms in America are just as determined to deny our (perceived) enemies the "right" to bear the same arms that we, as a nation, bear. It's just SO inconsistent.
As for our so-called "constitutional right" to bear arms, I'm of the camp that says it was never intended to cover the territory its spread out over now. At the time the constitution was being written, the perceived tension was between the States and the Union. The states, individually, wanted strong safeguards that would protect them from being overrun by the federal government, and foremost among these was the guaranteed right to form and maintain their own militias. The founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the current proliferation of mass-manufactured weapons of death in the hands of every citizen that wanted one enough.
But that's a whole other topic, and far greater minds than ours have debated it endlessly.
R.
Message edited by author 2012-06-15 13:35:20.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2012 01:25:53 PM · #338 |
Heh, I love being on the pro-guns side of this debate. Makes conservatives heads explode.
Strange bedfellows and all that. |
|
|
|
06/19/2012 04:13:58 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You are correct about the nuclear weapons...But would you give a murderer a gun...The countries that want nukes are enemies of everyone and have a large possibility of using them against their enemies. For example: North Korea...they are essentially enemies of the world excluding china...and China doesn't want them to have them. |
We DO give murderers guns! That's what we're talking about! Anyone who is really determined to have a gun, in America, can get one.
I find it wildly ironic that you folks who are bound and determined to "protect our right" to bear arms in America are just as determined to deny our (perceived) enemies the "right" to bear the same arms that we, as a nation, bear. It's just SO inconsistent.
As for our so-called "constitutional right" to bear arms, I'm of the camp that says it was never intended to cover the territory its spread out over now. At the time the constitution was being written, the perceived tension was between the States and the Union. The states, individually, wanted strong safeguards that would protect them from being overrun by the federal government, and foremost among these was the guaranteed right to form and maintain their own militias. The founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the current proliferation of mass-manufactured weapons of death in the hands of every citizen that wanted one enough.
But that's a whole other topic, and far greater minds than ours have debated it endlessly.
R. |
Yes, people who should not have gun, do have guns. They aren't GIVEN to them, they are gotten illegally. Do you think those people care? People without licenses drive, people in rehab drink and do drugs.
Pandora's box has been opened and you can't put that stuff back in the box. Criminals will have guns. They will use them to hurt, terrorize and kill innocent people. Shouldn't those people be able to defend themselves? Or maybe you'd like to suggest an alternative mechanism of self defense that's anywhere nearly as effective. Placing your life in the hands of your tormentor and hoping they decide to spare your life? Or maybe you've seen too many kung-fu movies where the guy with the sweet moves takes away the gun from the bad guy and beats him up mano a mano. I'm open to any practical suggestion you might have.
Just because you have the right to self defense, doesn't mean you have to use it. |
|
|
|
06/19/2012 04:14:48 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
It's not the weapon, it's the hand that holds it. |
|
|
|
06/19/2012 05:56:04 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
It's not the weapon, it's the hand that holds it. |
... and to think that nuclear weapons have been used on only two occasions.... guess what country did that. :O)\
Ray |
|
|
|
06/19/2012 09:41:41 PM · #342 |
| Stopped the damn war didn't it....and changed their attitude as well. And saved many lives. We should have done it again in the land of sand. |
|
|
|
06/19/2012 11:58:43 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Stopped the damn war didn't it....and changed their attitude as well. And saved many lives. We should have done it again in the land of sand. |
To the carpenter who only owns a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Besides, neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima had oil reserves. |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 12:07:46 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Stopped the damn war didn't it....and changed their attitude as well. And saved many lives. We should have done it again in the land of sand. |
Typical attitude!! |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 01:58:43 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Stopped the damn war didn't it....and changed their attitude as well. And saved many lives. We should have done it again in the land of sand. |
...You may want to revisit your history book regarding the land of sand and find out exactly who started that war. While you are at it, ask your countrymen just how keen they are to be in some of the foreign countries they are "Protecting".
Let's face facts my friend, the military expenditures and exports by the USA are the largest in the world. It truly would be interesting to study cause and effect in this parameter, but I will leave that to much better informed people than me.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 08:15:53 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
It's not the weapon, it's the hand that holds it. |
... and to think that nuclear weapons have been used on only two occasions.... guess what country did that. :O)\
Ray |
And your point is...? |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 04:59:50 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
How can an inanimate object cause a problem?
|
...and to think that there are countless numbers of countries that desire to have nuclear weapons... where's the harm you ask, they are after all inanimate objects. :O)
Ray |
It's not the weapon, it's the hand that holds it. |
... and to think that nuclear weapons have been used on only two occasions.... guess what country did that. :O)\
Ray |
And your point is...? |
Work on it...it might come to you eventually.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 09:11:28 PM · #348 |
| You aren't going far enough back in history pal. You might also want to have a look at who wants you dead and what they are teaching their children about us heathens. I'd wager there is not one Mosque that does not collect money for this cause. |
|
|
|
06/20/2012 09:38:26 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I'd wager there is not one Mosque that does not collect money for this cause. |
Nor was there a single village church that didn't contribute to the Holy Crusades. What's your point?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/21/2012 12:18:58 AM · #350 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You aren't going far enough back in history pal. You might also want to have a look at who wants you dead and what they are teaching their children about us heathens. I'd wager there is not one Mosque that does not collect money for this cause. |
Please. Christianity has just as much blood on their hands as islam. Make this religious, period, and you lose any credibility whatsoever. There are millions upon millions of innocents in the 'land of sand' that don't deserve to be destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.
Which, ironically, was the 'reason' Iraq was invaded to begin with, no?
Get YOUR head out of the 'land of the sand'.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 02:46:26 PM EDT.
