| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2015 03:48:18 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
You have to prove within reasonable doubt that you are acting in self defense....Chasing someone down as you put it is not self defense unless he is running to harm someone else...ie a family member. |
Guy steals a taco truck tip jar with $20.29 in it. He is chased down 2 blocks and killed as he drives away. Self-defense-Castle Doctrine
Or the kid killed in Wisconsin who hid on a neighbor's porch when the cops went to break up a party. The kid never saw the guy who he was supposed to be threatening.
Case law seems to be expanding to allow lethal force in defense of your property, moving away from the old line of retreating or just standing your ground against threats to your person or threats to others. Be it a case of beer or your car parked outside your home gun owners may now have the right to kill without direct threat to thier person. "Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property," from the first link
I would prefer the law the way you think it is written, that is lethal force can only be used in the face of lethal force, but threat to property is now seen (in some cases at least) as justification for lethal force.
Message edited by author 2015-07-21 15:57:12. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 03:52:45 PM · #252 |
I don't know if someone runs off with my beer I might have to use deadly force. I mean that's a killin offense. Brought in front of the judge my defense would be....well he just needed killin
|
|
|
|
07/21/2015 04:04:30 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I don't know if someone runs off with my beer I might have to use deadly force. I mean that's a killin offense. Brought in front of the judge my defense would be....well he just needed killin |
Hmmm, with most American beers bringing you a case might justify use of lethal force ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 04:20:14 PM · #254 |
Actually ever since I was stationed in Germany I prefer German beer
|
|
|
|
07/21/2015 04:54:13 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hmmm, with most American beers bringing you a case might justify use of lethal force ... ;-) |
That was true 40 years ago, but American beer is now as good as anything you can find around the world. Fresh beer is better beer, so I'll take a Trumer Pils over a Pilsener Urquell. There are about 60 breweries within a hundred miles of the bay that can make as good a beer than anything you can find in the import section of your local. Anyone who brings Dogfish Head, Russian River or Green Flash is welcome at my party. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 05:18:14 PM · #256 |
| I meant "mass-produced" beer -- the kind that can pay for commercials during major television events ... and actually, even those have their place under certain conditions -- a rugby team member once told me their plan of action was "one keg before the game, one keg during the game, and one keg after the game ..." though I do think they always offered to share with the other team. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 05:26:22 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Generally one would recognize the bad guy by his behavior, you know, like pointing the gun at the recruiting center, and subsequently firing. Not sure how that isn't obvious. |
Really? Ask they guy who almost shot the the man who had wrestled the gun from the killer after the Giffords shooting in Pheonix. "Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, 'very lucky.'"
Ask any cop who arrives at a call where there has been gunfire and has to make a split second decision about which armed person at the scene, who is not in uniform and does not have a badge, is a threat and who is not. They are not trained to wait for suspects to shoot someone to show they are the bad guy. Anyone with a gun increases the threat matrix. Look at the number of children who have been shot by police while carrying realistic toy guns in the last few years and tell me you really think under stressful situations that it is easy to recognize who is and is not a threat. Tell me that untrained citizens are going to react more carefully than police, who don't have an easy time in life or death situations reacting properly to the presence of any weapon. |
Yes really, how exactly do you think he determined that the guy holding the gun wasnt a threat that required lethal force? |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 05:27:56 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by Mike:
huh, that seemed to work for George Zimmerman, nevermind, he was just standing his ground. |
Actually, he was bleeding his ground.. You know, because Trayvon was bashing his head into the sidewalk..
Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative does it? |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 05:50:44 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
huh, that seemed to work for George Zimmerman, nevermind, he was just standing his ground. |
Actually, he was bleeding his ground.. You know, because Trayvon was bashing his head into the sidewalk..
Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative does it? |
I thought standing your ground involved standing, as in remaining in one place without moving your feet, as opposed to say following a person several blocks, chasing after him when Martin tried to sprint away from the strange man following him, and then fatally confronting him, after being told by the police not to do follow him. We all seem to write our own narratives and select the facts that we choose to ignore.
You do know that had Martin been armed, he would have been justified in killing Zimmerman under the same defense that Zimmerman used to kill Martin, don't you?
Message edited by author 2015-07-21 17:58:31. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 08:41:29 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
huh, that seemed to work for George Zimmerman, nevermind, he was just standing his ground. |
Actually, he was bleeding his ground.. You know, because Trayvon was bashing his head into the sidewalk..
Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative does it? |
I thought standing your ground involved standing, as in remaining in one place without moving your feet, as opposed to say following a person several blocks, chasing after him when Martin tried to sprint away from the strange man following him, and then fatally confronting him, after being told by the police not to do follow him. We all seem to write our own narratives and select the facts that we choose to ignore.
You do know that had Martin been armed, he would have been justified in killing Zimmerman under the same defense that Zimmerman used to kill Martin, don't you? |
Last I checked simply following someone isn't considered sufficient provocation. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 09:15:29 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
huh, that seemed to work for George Zimmerman, nevermind, he was just standing his ground. |
Actually, he was bleeding his ground.. You know, because Trayvon was bashing his head into the sidewalk..
Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative does it? |
I thought standing your ground involved standing, as in remaining in one place without moving your feet, as opposed to say following a person several blocks, chasing after him when Martin tried to sprint away from the strange man following him, and then fatally confronting him, after being told by the police not to do follow him. We all seem to write our own narratives and select the facts that we choose to ignore.
You do know that had Martin been armed, he would have been justified in killing Zimmerman under the same defense that Zimmerman used to kill Martin, don't you? |
Last I checked simply following someone isn't considered sufficient provocation. |
Someone following you with a gun isn't? |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 09:31:47 PM · #262 |
In a display of subtle racism, lets not get our "thugs" confused. Martin was a boy, with a creepy guy following him and threatening him for only one reason, being black. Then he was getting the shit kicked out of him so he killed that, essentially, child. Stand your ground under Jeb Bush- another brilliant law-no wonder why Trump is lambasting him.
It seems like fantasy to say arm everyone, school children, church prayer groups, etc. rather than taking away non hunting weapons, or strictly limiting what people can own.
Seriously, if you think handguns are for anything else but killing people, you are either kidding yourself or not too bright.
Message edited by author 2015-07-21 21:33:19. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 10:44:56 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Last I checked simply following someone isn't considered sufficient provocation. |
Follow the thread and read the posted links and check again. The belief that you or your property are under threat is sufficient to allow the killing of another person. State of mind is the key in Castle Doctrine cases. Being followed and confronted can be seen as sufficient threat to allow the use of deadly force under current law.
Message edited by author 2015-07-22 01:05:18. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 11:59:46 PM · #264 |
Correspondent. It's driving me nuts... Yes, I know it's pointless in the overall argument and such, but details matter!
Why does it matter that it's a CNN correspondent, though? Was that an important distinction for some reason?
No, don't answer that, as I really am not following the thread. I just keep wanting to fix the title.... |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 12:16:40 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Seriously, if you think handguns are for anything else but killing people, you are either kidding yourself or not too bright. |
I hate jumping sides when we have a perfectly good rant going on, but I know plenty of people who own handguns who have no intent of killing anyone.
One guy collects rare and antique handguns, and he is as much of a threat as if he collected and repaired pocket watches. ask him if you can shoot one of his babies and he will look at you as if you slipped a cog. Sure they can shoot bullets, but that is not the object of his obsession, he just loves the history and precision in these artifacts.
The second guy is a bow hunter, and he has to hunt with a 9mm automatic on his hip because arrows are not great killing devices, so every so often he does not kill a buck with one arrow and it becomes his obligation to chase down the deer, sometimes over ten or so miles to finish the wounded animal off, and it is neither practical nor legal to do that with a long gun.
Another guy has a big gun collection, about half hand guns, half long guns, that he likes to use on the range. Making holes in paper is a hobby. He loads his own ammo because he wants his holes to be exactly where he puts them and commercially available ammo is not precise enough. During the week the guns live in the safe and come out for play on Sunday.
Lastly the only reason I have ever carried a handgun was when I raised and rode horses on long trail rides. The hills of the Santa Cruz mountains are beautiful, but in the 1920s someone stocked them with big European boars to hunt, and they are still there. If you startle one of these brutes, they will charge and rip the intestines out of your horse, so the lead and sweep riders in the group ride armed with a handgun with real stopping power. Training your horse not to bolt when firing off of them is a bit tricky. And lastly and most sadly, we used to carry a .22 when we hauled horses in the horse trailer, because sometimes a horse will freak out and hurt himself so badly that you need to kill him as swiftly as possible. On airflights that carry horses they have a big gun that looks like a flare gun that shoots a soft bullet that looks like a ping pong ball, but those are so expensive that we settled for a little .22.
So IMHO any gun be it a long gun or a handgun is a dangerous tool, but they do have their uses beyond killing people.
Message edited by author 2015-07-22 01:08:25. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 01:31:50 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Last I checked simply following someone isn't considered sufficient provocation. |
Follow the thread and read the posted links and check again. The belief that you or your property are under threat is sufficient to allow the killing of another person. State of mind is the key in Castle Doctrine cases. Being followed and confronted can be seen as sufficient threat to allow the use of deadly force under current law. |
I'm pretty certain that he didn't confront Trayvon, the testimony in court indicated that he actually confronted Zimmerman. So again, as I said, I don't think FOLLOWING (alone, not with confronting, pulling a gun, or any other imaginative things you might come up with here) is sufficient provocation. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 01:33:11 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Someone following you with a gun isn't? |
I'm assuming Trayvon didn't know George had a gun. Seems unlikely he would have confronted him at all if he would have known. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 01:37:27 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
In a display of subtle racism, lets not get our "thugs" confused. Martin was a boy, with a creepy guy following him and threatening him for only one reason, being black. Then he was getting the shit kicked out of him so he killed that, essentially, child. Stand your ground under Jeb Bush- another brilliant law-no wonder why Trump is lambasting him.
It seems like fantasy to say arm everyone, school children, church prayer groups, etc. rather than taking away non hunting weapons, or strictly limiting what people can own.
Seriously, if you think handguns are for anything else but killing people, you are either kidding yourself or not too bright. |
Describe the 'boy' Martin to me please. Height weight and build will do fine.
Racism was almost CERTAINLY at play here, Zimmerman is a total jackwad. We all know that, no surprise here, the only reason he was following Martin was because he saw a black kid in a mostly white neighborhood. Would it really help if I posted a half-dozen handguns that aren't at all suitable for self defense? (or murder..).. Modern ones too, not antiques. Target pistols, bear pistols, "Biggest goddamn handgun ever" pistols, etc.. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 04:21:56 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'm pretty certain that he didn't confront Trayvon, the testimony in court indicated that he actually confronted Zimmerman. So again, as I said, I don't think FOLLOWING (alone, not with confronting, pulling a gun, or any other imaginative things you might come up with here) is sufficient provocation. |
Of what happened in the Zimmerman case I am certain that you are certain. I heard things that made me less certain.
Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him moments before he was killed. She testified that as he neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman."And then he said, 'That N-word is still following me now,'" said Jeantel. "I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked 'creepy.' 'Creepy, white' -- excuse my language -- 'cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker." Martin neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman."He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds." "I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'"
But Zimmerman was the only eyewitness to survive the encounter, so his is the more compelling version of events to some. He told a story where Martin "came out of nowhere" and attacked him. Had Martin been the only survivor of the encounter, I am sure he would have recalled events differently.
When two people are frightened of each other and at least one of them has a gun, and the legal right to kill the other, only one side of the story is going to be told.
As far as your understanding of the Castle Doctrine, I see no reason to rehash what I wrote lower on the page; suffice to say that it goes to state of mind. If someone is chasing you, you run away and they continue to chase you down and they put you in fear of harm, you can kill them. Heck, you could kill them for stealing a 6-pack of beer off your front lawn.
Message edited by author 2015-07-22 04:27:29. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 07:32:15 AM · #270 |
So, you wouldn't be all over it if the 911 call had a recording of George calling Trayvon Nigger? Because that's basically the idea behind calling someone a cracker, its a racial slur..
Besides that, you can't ignore the fact that the physical evidence agreed with the story George told.
I don't know what happened that night, but I'm certain that Trayvon played a huge role in his own demise. And I'm equally certain that Zimmerman is a total asshat. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 07:54:44 AM · #271 |
Originally posted by Cory:
And I'm equally certain that Zimmerman is a total asshat. |
But still should have been allowed to have a gun ... :-( |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 08:12:53 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
And I'm equally certain that Zimmerman is a total asshat. |
But still should have been allowed to have a gun ... :-( |
You would be happier if he was dead? The trajectory of events that night were going such that one of the two were going to die, the fact is that I'd prefer the one who was being a creepy ass cracker survive instead of the one being a violent ass thug. In my world he who throws the first blow is the person at fault. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 08:26:09 AM · #273 |
this is crazy, the idea that someone's property is worth more than someone's life is baffling to me, but i guess I'm not surprised. |
|
|
|
07/22/2015 08:51:56 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by Cory:
So, you wouldn't be all over it if the 911 call had a recording of George calling Trayvon Nigger? Because that's basically the idea behind calling someone a cracker, its a racial slur..
Besides that, you can't ignore the fact that the physical evidence agreed with the story George told.
I don't know what happened that night, but I'm certain that Trayvon played a huge role in his own demise. And I'm equally certain that Zimmerman is a total asshat. |
I agree. No one can really know what went on except if you were there. Zimmerman really sounds like a sorry individual. But I don't think that he was wrong for shooting Trayvon. I agree that Trayvon more than likely caused the situation to spiral out of control. I also don't think that as far as Zimmeman was concerned, that this was at all racially motivated like the media and Al Sharpton made it out to be.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2015 08:55:47 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I agree that Trayvon more than likely caused the situation to spiral out of control. |
You don't think it was Zimmerman following Martin after BEING TOLD BY THE POLICE not to do so which "escalated" the situation? The confrontaion never would have happened except for Zimmerman's armed vigilantism ... |
|
