3/22/2012 10:42:19 AM

page 14

3/22/2012 10:42:21 AM

EMCE and terpball are so angry, just relax

3/22/2012 10:42:29 AM

I thought the castle doctrine had to do with protecting your residence?

This happened outside far from his property. I could even give him more of a pass if it happened on his property...but he was going around picking fights.

3/22/2012 11:13:51 AM

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : nm wrong thread]

3/22/2012 11:14:34 AM

^^ it does have to do with your residence. The "stand your ground" law in florida expands the castle doctrine's clause of 'duty to retreat unless you're in your home' to public places by eliminating talk of 'duty to retreat before use of deadly force' from the requirements of self-defense using lethal force.


Meaning....you don't have to back away from the conflict first. But as george zimmerman wants it to mean...i not only don't have to back away from the conflict....i can also pursue a conflict, then shoot people when a conflict arises

3/22/2012 11:23:05 AM

Quote :

"Meaning....you don't have to back away from the conflict first. But as george zimmerman wants it to mean...i not only don't have to back away from the conflict....i can also pursue a conflict, then shoot people when a conflict arises "

if this is how the court interprets the stand your ground, I will lose faith in people. This is in no way the meaning of that law, and it should be better defined for future 'self defense' claims.

3/22/2012 11:26:43 AM

Of course the court won't interpret the law to say you can chase someone down. That is not and never was the intent. The intent behind getting rid of the duty to retreat was to do away with ambiguous and merky legal situations and the help ensure the safety of victims to effectively thwart an attack without worry of prosecution because some slick lawyer could argue whether or not retreat was possible. Which is why castle doctrine really has nothing to do with this case. Even with duty to retreat, that was only if and when possible. If you were getting your ass kicked and you couldn't get away you could still use lethal force even though you didn't retreat. Anyone with a brain would attempt to remove themselves from the situation, regardless if duty to retreat is the law. However, in many instances, retreat isn't possible or may not be effective in saving your life. Zimmerman wasn't thinking about the law when he chased the kid. And regardless of the law, if he did indeed chase and escalate the situation then he is guilty of committing a crime. The point is, even if the duty to retreat were the law, it wouldn't have prevented this nor would it change the outcome thus far. You all are just wanting to blame a change in the law that YOU don't like because you have a problem with firearms and self defense. If you want to blame someone, then blame the allegedly over zealous idiot who did this.

The intent, and how I truly believe courts will interpret the law without the duty to retreat, is not that people are allowed to chase someone down. It is to protect victims who felt so threatened/were detained/were cornered in such a way that retreat wasn't possible. It gets rid of a duty that is often impossible to prove and opens up real victims to unjust prosecution. Getting rid of the duty to retreat didn't create this crime. It didn't help it happen. You can't detain or use lethal force against and attacker that is retreating... that part never changed. So once again, castle doctrine doesn't really apply or help this guy, if he did chase the kid down.



[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 11:50:48 AM

Quote :

"indicating the need for the reform of a law that allows a situation to exist where one can pursue and murder an innocent child in the street and then claim self-defense = liberal spin."

except that this law really doesn't "allow" this situation to happen. This law doesn't say "it's OK to follow someone and then shoot them when they turn around and attack you." If there needs to be extra clarification for that, then fine, but I fully believe people have a right to defend themselves if attacked, and if this law codifies that, then fine. "Duty to retreat," on the surface, is bullshit. You should be able to fucking defend yourself.

Quote :

"This happened outside far from his property. I could even give him more of a pass if it happened on his property...but he was going around picking fights."

Bingo. it's clear this guy went out and picked the fight, at which point, self-defense is an absurd claim to make.

3/22/2012 12:38:41 PM

Quote :

"The intent behind getting rid of the duty to retreat was to do away with ambiguous and merky legal situations and the help ensure the safety of victims to effectively thwart an attack without worry of prosecution because some slick lawyer could argue whether or not retreat was possible"

Replacing it with the crystal clear alternative: ensuring the safety of assailants because some slick lawyer could argue retreat wasn't possible.

3/22/2012 12:53:39 PM

Im going to play devils advocate here, so please dont get fiesty without realizing im playing DEVILS ADVOCATE. I live in FL, so this is a hot story.

I see there are a lot of marches and protests being organized, mainly by black organizations, in support of this kid. Lets say, hypothetically, that the Zimmerman guy turned out to not be at fault or was justified. Lets say, hypothetically, the dead kid was the aggressor. Its not right for mass outrage to sway popular opinion when the truth is the opposite of what the mass outrage is demanding. This leads to people getting thrown under the bus just to appease the masses. Its happened before.

3/22/2012 1:11:15 PM

Yes, I am now convinced that the law is much more clear and direct now that the verbage describing observable efforts to not be the aggressor have been removed...

3/22/2012 1:19:22 PM

Quote :

"Im going to play devils advocate here, so please dont get fiesty without realizing im playing DEVILS ADVOCATE. I live in FL, so this is a hot story. I see there are a lot of marches and protests being organized, mainly by black organizations, in support of this kid. Lets say, hypothetically, that the Zimmerman guy turned out to not be at fault or was justified. Lets say, hypothetically, the dead kid was the aggressor. Its not right for mass outrage to sway popular opinion when the truth is the opposite of what the mass outrage is demanding. This leads to people getting thrown under the bus just to appease the masses. Its happened before."

When, in the past, and currently, there has been institutionalized racism that prevents people of color from having a fair trial, there is a need for people to protest.

Don't be obtuse. We both know with a certainty that if the shooter had been a Black man and the victim the White highschool quarterback that this man would have been processed through the system the day of the shooting.

3/22/2012 1:34:33 PM

you must really hate being white. I'm sorry for your loss

3/22/2012 1:37:07 PM

Quote :

"you must really hate being white. I'm sorry for your loss"

I too am sorry for your loss.

3/22/2012 1:42:57 PM

Quote :

"you must really hate being white. I'm sorry for your loss "

not as much as you love being white

3/22/2012 1:49:25 PM

For the love of God, stop being proud to be white! You know that isn't politically correct

3/22/2012 2:02:29 PM

wdprice seems to be having real trouble separating the intent of laws, and how they are interpreted in practice. Look, you two ton lumberjack, that's exactly why the law needs to be reconstructed in a more unambiguous manner. So that there isn't so much room for loose interpretation.

So, while you talk about protecting "the real victims from prosecution", why don't you go ahead and tell us who the real victims are in this particular case. We're waiting....

3/22/2012 2:07:02 PM

Well, according to you, this guy was a racist lunatic who set out to kill a black person, so what good would any law do? Laws don't prevent criminals from committing their crimes.

3/22/2012 2:10:18 PM

short of, "you can't instigate or unreasonably contribute towards an incidence of violence and then claim self-defense," I don't know how else you'd change the law while still actually allow people to reasonably defend themselves

3/22/2012 2:11:32 PM

i mean that black kid shouldn't have ran away, its clearly a sign of aggression

3/22/2012 2:13:02 PM

how about don't pursue someone who poses no threat to you?

3/22/2012 2:13:26 PM

^^^^ really? I said all that? I must be sleep posting.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM. Reason : Fucking samp]

3/22/2012 2:15:30 PM

what good is a firearm if i can't waltz around shooting whomever i like when they flee from me

3/22/2012 2:17:47 PM

lol, can't you people just agree that you're not gonna change your opinions no matter what information comes out...It's obvious that neither side is gonna budge regardless.

3/22/2012 2:19:48 PM

emce be drunk as hell, posting shit and not remembering

3/22/2012 2:21:20 PM

Quote :

"Lets say, hypothetically, that the Zimmerman guy turned out to not be at fault or was justified. Lets say, hypothetically, the dead kid was the aggressor. Its not right for mass outrage to sway popular opinion when the truth is the opposite of what the mass outrage is demanding."

I've seen no evidence in this case that would indicate this. Whenever and however such evidence appears, they should plaster it all over, of course. That can change things. The discussion we're having now, however, shouldn't be centered on the possibility of something emerging that all reasonable accounts would say probably doesn't exist.

Even if the tides did turn, there are cops that should be fired because of things that we do know happened, discounting the possibility of eyewitnesses lying.

3/22/2012 2:31:50 PM

Anderson Cooper is interviewing the family on his show right now (his daytime talkshow)

In Raleigh it's on FOX 50

3/22/2012 2:35:13 PM

I bet I could whoop mrfrog's ass one handed....i wouldn't even need to put down my can of tea. Lemme go pick a fight with him for no reason.
So what if he has 100lbs on me.....

3/22/2012 2:37:09 PM

and even then, a "better worded law" doesn't even matter here. the police didn't want to arrest the guy, and no law anywhere can get past that. if the police don't want to pursue the matter, then they won't. I imagine there was plenty of evidence to show that, even with this current incarnation of the law, Zimmerman didn't act in self defense, but the police didn't look for it. it's akin to suggesting that current speeding laws aren't clear enough because police don't always write tickets.

3/22/2012 2:37:30 PM

because the police are racists

3/22/2012 2:43:04 PM

police only like mexicans

3/22/2012 2:44:28 PM

the police do not systematically treat blacks worse

nor do they put black on black crimes on the back burner

3/22/2012 2:46:01 PM

Blacks clearly just commit more crimes than Whites.

This is evidenced by the fact that there are more Black people in prison than White people.

3/22/2012 2:47:19 PM

3/22/2012 2:48:46 PM

I hope you cocksuckers realize that the law was designed to increase gun sales, and not to protect people.

3/22/2012 3:07:50 PM

and increasing gun sales is a horrible thing because... i mean, I'm with you, and I hate it when businesses craft laws for their own benefit, but you seem to be hung up on "OMFG GUNS!!!" more than anything else. you still think this law has anything to do with why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. There could have been a law that said "No one is allowed to shoot Trayvon Martin" and Zimmerman still wouldn't have been arrested. Stop using the law as a scapegoat

3/22/2012 3:11:09 PM

I'm not anti 2nd amendment. I'm anti stupid fucking laws that written by corporate interests.

3/22/2012 3:12:23 PM

just out of curiosity, do you think there is a compelling interest that people not have to run away when being attacked? do you think people have an innate right to legitimate self-defense?

3/22/2012 3:14:05 PM

Quote :

"the police do not systematically treat blacks worse nor do they put black on black crimes on the back burner "

omg do i agree with McDanger?

I think i do! The problem with crimes in the black community being unsolved is that sorry motherfuckers dont have any interest in helping the cops unles its their fuckin son that gets dropped

the police do all that they freakin can; white people are more concerned about the community and theres no inherent stigma to distrust cops in the "white" neighborhoods

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM. Reason : e]

3/22/2012 3:14:12 PM

I believe he was being sarcastic.

3/22/2012 3:21:58 PM

Quote :

"do you think there is a compelling interest that people not have to run away when being attacked? do you think people have an innate right to legitimate self-defense?"

Duty to retreat was set up to keep fat fucks like Zimmerman from playing the part of John Rambo at the slightest sign of danger. If you know you have a gun, then you should bear the responsibility of only using it as an absolute last method of self defense. If you retreat, and the person still attacks you, then the case of self-defense is much more plausible.

You can't just go around picking fights with people, and then blow their fucking brains out if they throw some skittles at you.

3/22/2012 3:22:00 PM

^^dammit, i was looking forward to the beginning of a new era

3/22/2012 3:23:28 PM

^^ but see, even then, that's dumb. yes, chasing someone down shouldn't be protected, but saying that someone's first response to being attacked is to let the attacker do whatever the fuck they wanted to accomplish by running you off is insane. "Duty to retreat" can't even be applied when the guy instigated the damned event in the first place! I happen to think that if someone attacks you, you should be able to defend yourself right then and there, period, end of story. As it stands, criminals can attack you, and your only legal response is to run away? and no one sees how that might not deter criminal behaviour? really? i mean, it's like you are specifically saying that the attacker has more rights than the victim

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 3:29:28 PM

So maybe I'm missing something, please correct me if I'm wrong with any of this, let me restate what appears to have happened based on what I've read and heard.

Quote :

"Zimmerman sees Trayvon walking and thinks he's suspicious. Trayvon sees someone following him in a car while he walks home and flees on foot. Zimmerman, thinks he is a criminal and chases after him since he is tired of the people who have committed the crimes lately always getting away. Zimmer has a gun and cell phone, Trayvon has a cell phone, skittles, and a canned drink. At some point, the two meet up and a confrontation ensues. Zimmerman can not be aware that he is only chasing someone armed with Skittles and a Drink and a phone. He thinks he is chasing a criminal in the neighborhood. Someone screams for help which at this point we don't know if it was Zimmerman yelling for help in subduing the suspect, or Trayvon screaming for help from someone attacking him. We also aren't totally sure if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman first, or vice versa. We are also not sure to what extent Trayvon attacked or didn't attack Zimmerman and led to him being shot. Trayvon was probably trying to defend himself from what he thought was someone after him trying to do him harm. Zimmerman thought it was a criminal fighting back trying to get away. At some point Zimmerman chose to use deadly force to protect himself"

Am I missing something here?

Sure given the evidence we know now, its obvious that Zimmerman overreacted, but at the time Zimmerman thought he was chasing a criminal. Especially since Trayvon started to flee.

There has to be some other reason that lead to Trayvon deciding to flee from a car following him.

If I was just walking home from the store, and I was already inside my gated community and a car was behind me following me while I was walking home, my first reaction isn't going to be taking off on foot and fleeing the scene. I'm more than likely going to stop walking and see what they want.

Once again, people are acting like Zimmerman just chased the kid down for no reason and shot him for fun.

It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that it was just a mass confusion and at the time he thought he was doing the right thing in defending himself from what he assumed was a criminal who had been prowling the neighborhood.[/quote]



I'm I incorrect in anything that I stated?

3/22/2012 3:30:13 PM

Quote :

"Sure given the evidence we know now, its obvious that Zimmerman overreacted, but at the time Zimmerman thought he was chasing a criminal."

not Zimmerman's job to chase a criminal. not. his. fucking. job.

Quote :

"If I was just walking home from the store, and I was already inside my gated community and a car was behind me following me while I was walking home, my first reaction isn't going to be taking off on foot and fleeing the scene. I'm more than likely going to stop walking and see what they want."

then you're fucking crazy. my first response to someone following me is to try and get away from them.

Quote :

"Once again, people are acting like Zimmerman just chased the kid down for no reason and shot him for fun."

no, but he did pretty much chase the kid down for no reason.

3/22/2012 3:33:20 PM

Quote :

"not Zimmerman's job to chase a criminal. not. his. fucking. job."

It's also not illegal. And as I posted, with the rash of crime in the neighborhood he thought it was a criminal, and given that he started to flee the scene, he has the right to chase after him.

Quote :

"then you're fucking crazy. my first response to someone following me is to try and get away from them."

If I'm already inside my gated community walking down the street, and there is a car behind me going slow, my first reaction isn't going to be to flee the scene and try and get away. I'm going to assume its someone I know, or someone that needs something and stop to see whats going on. My first reaction isn't going to be to run away. As I don't think it's going to be the logical reaction for most people on here.

Quote :

"no, but he did pretty much chase the kid down for no reason."

Yes, we know that now. But at the time Zimmerman assumed he was chasing a criminal who had been in the neighborhood and was trying to get away.


Look at it from Zimmermans perspective that night.

Quote :

"I'm mad because people have been causing crime in my neighborhood Oh look at this, a person out in the rain in a hoddie acting somewhat suspicious to me, let me slow down and see what he's up to while I call 911 to report it. Wait, what? The person is running away now for no reason, he must have been up to something, let me go catch him and hold him to the cops arrive"

What part of that is unreasonable?

Obviously some things happened which we will never know the exact truth of, but something happened that caused Zimmerman to shoot the kid. I seriously doubt it was because the kid threw Skittles at him.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 3:37:36 PM

Quote :

"I hope you cocksuckers realize that the law was designed to increase gun sales, and not to protect people."

So we should enact laws that will result in fewer gun sales then? Funny, because when that's happened, been threatened, or perceived as going to happen, gun sales skyrocketed and set multiple records.

Quote :

"You can't just go around picking fights with people, and then blow their fucking brains out if they throw some skittles at you."

Well that wasn't legal before castle doctrine and isn't legal now...

3/22/2012 3:38:52 PM

how the fuck do you know what zimmerman assumed?

3/22/2012 3:39:33 PM

Police Chief just stepped down. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Seems like some more senseless bullshit.

3/22/2012 3:41:05 PM