|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 22 2012 14:44 BlackJack wrote:
I just realized the OP's post is from The Guardian. They are supposed to be a respectably paper, albeit somewhat leftist. Why would they leave out the fact that Zimmerman was bloodied after the altercation? I don't see how you can tell the story and leave out such an important detail without either being biased or careless.
On this story I'm in agreement with them, but I should tell you that The Guardian is basically the UK left's equivalent of the American right's Fox News. Expect every story published there to have a liberal bias, they are by no means neutral journalists just trying to report the facts. We're talking about a paper that published an article urging all women, in a completely non-joking fashion, to 'become lesbians' so that they wouldn't be 'sleeping with the enemy (men)' in their fight for women's rights. That writer is still publishing articles for them today as far as I know. There was also an article about how men shouldn't be legally allowed to get paternity tests on their children. Just a sample of some of the crazy shit you can find in The Guardian.
|
What saddens me even more than the kid's death is that had he not been black noone would have cared.
|
On March 22 2012 15:00 Jugan wrote:
Actually, it SHOULD be left to your peers, who represent society through the jury process, to decide whether or not it was justifiable, let alone acceptable, that you KILLED another person. If you're so afraid of not being able to defend yourself from a burglar, then pass a law that says "you can defend yourselves from buglars" not you can carry a gun and shoot people in public.
I agree that it should be left to your peers and society, but through the legislative process and laws, not through the judiciary. The problem with leaving it to juries is that they can't decide whether or not it was justified until AFTER it happens. If I am in that situation, I want to know exactly what I can and can't do BEFORE it happens and not after, during a trial. You an say "just act reasonably" but people don't agree with exactly what is reasonable in these situations.
The problem with only allowing it in the home is what happens if you're in a convenient store and someone tries to kidnap another customer using a gun. Then are you justified in killing them? I would say probably, but not under a law that only protects people in their home.
|
Think about it. You are walking alone in a neighborhood and some dude is following you in his car while talking on the phone, and you aren't gonna run away? Instead you will go up and tell him you are doing nothing wrong and commend him...yeah right, the kid had every reason to flee and then try and wrestle with the guy when he pulled a gun on him.
|
On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke?
He chased the kid into someones yard............ He is not a police officer. He is not in uniform. What he did is no different than kidnapping, regardless of intent (see the fact where he caused bodily harm aka Killed him). Why doesn't everyone think its okay to run about willynilly telling other people what to do with a loaded weapon? The kid running does not imply guilt either. HE IS NOT A UNIFORM POLICE OFFICER. What he did was illegal even before he shot him.
Nothing illegal about following him......... Really? Really? He stalked him from a vehicle then persued him on foot through peoples yards. Wtf are you talking about. This guy is not a superhero, superheros do not exist, and even in our stories atleast they wear uniforms and can be distuinguished from other citizens. Just because its a free country doesn't mean you get to follow people around and detain them because you feel like it.
If I walked around my neighborhood and someone did that shit to me, I would call the cops on them, and tell them someone was stalking me or trying to kidnap me. This is bullshit, people start to think its okay to act like superheros, then this shit happens. There is a reason only Uniformed Police Officers usually make arrests, because thats the only safe way to arrest someone. The only instance where it would be okay for a citizen to intervene in something like this is if they thought people were at risk of physical harm.
So its okay to wait outside a bar and stop someone from driving home under the influence. Its not okay to stalk and chase someone down to detain (he held someone against their will, which is against the law) them because you don't like the way they look.
Put yourself in that kids shoes, and tell me that guy wasn't doing anything wrong or against the law.
|
Was the kid armed of did he have any other kind of weapons with him or objects that might be mistaken as weapons?
If not, then the case is clear in my opinion.
|
On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world.
if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it.
|
On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:
See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world.
Can you point to a statute though? I've been combing through Florida's for anything relevant and have yet to find a law that he broke. You can't prove it was kidnapping, and unless they caught him threatening the kid on tape (hard to hear) then it isn't assault. Culpable negligence is broad, but I'm not sure it applies here as the act itself wasn't so much negligent but reckless. I just can't find a law that he broke. In order to be guilty of stalking or harassing you have to do it 'willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly." Since this only happened once and Zimmerman will argue he had only good intentions, I don't think it applies.
|
On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it.
Not with a gun, in clear pursuit of them, and then claiming it as self-defense when you kill the person. I'm not clear on Florida's laws, but if that's not illegal, it should be.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it.
Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you....
|
On March 22 2012 15:05 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:00 Jugan wrote:
Actually, it SHOULD be left to your peers, who represent society through the jury process, to decide whether or not it was justifiable, let alone acceptable, that you KILLED another person. If you're so afraid of not being able to defend yourself from a burglar, then pass a law that says "you can defend yourselves from buglars" not you can carry a gun and shoot people in public. I agree that it should be left to your peers and society, but through the legislative process and laws, not through the judiciary. The problem with leaving it to juries is that they can't decide whether or not it was justified until AFTER it happens. If I am in that situation, I want to know exactly what I can and can't do BEFORE it happens and not after, during a trial. You an say "just act reasonably" but people don't agree with exactly what is reasonable in these situations. The problem with only allowing it in the home is what happens if you're in a convenient store and someone tries to kidnap another customer using a gun. Then are you justified in killing them? I would say probably, but not under a law that only protects people in their home.
In the circumstance you mentioned it would be quite clear that's acting in self defense, there's a CLEAR and IMMINENT threat to the person in question. These are standards that are applied in the status quo before the the legislation in question. That's kinda what SELF DEFENSE is. You SHOULD be held accountable whenever you take a person's life. You can always appeal the ruling if you think the courts got it wrong. In the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty so chances are if they find you guilty of murder then you probably murdered someone. There's also this thing called "Reasonable Doubt" which would also hold up in court to protect people from a "grey area" ruling, which can be brought about by situations where people are put under extreme stress in situations feel their lives are in imminent danger.
The problem with YOUR legislation is that you completely forgo that process and you don't hold people accountable for the taking of another human being's life. And yeah, actually juries CAN decide whether or not it was justified after it happens, during a trial. That's why we have a trial. To decide whether or a person committed a crime and should be punished for it.
|
On March 22 2012 13:15 Tektos wrote:
How does something like the Stand your Ground law pass in a single state let alone 20+?
That is the most stupid shit I've ever heard in my life!
He clearly pursued the kid (against the advice of the police over the phone) and is now claiming self defense... what has this world come to.
Poor kid, I sincerely hope justice gets served.
Its a complicated issue. Before these laws were introduced, there were instances of individuals who had "failed to retreat" and were charged with manslaughter and even murder. These were people that were legitmately attacked by armed attackers who either felt they could not get away or were so filled with adrenaline and panic that they didnt consider retreating. Philosophically, the legal system of the United States is such that 10 criminals should be allowed to go free before one innocent person should be punished. It is unreasonable to expect someone placed in an apparently life threatening situation to determine if a path of retreat is possible and then to utilize it.
The US was also founded on principles that one should be able protect ones property, rights and life. There was a case in Texas were someone saw two people robbing his neighbors house. He called the police but they were slow in arriving so he confronted them with a shotgun and when they showed their guns he fired and killed both.
The laws in Florida were modeled around those two philosophies. This incident has shown that the law probably needs to be refined but it should not be done in such a manner as to again threaten innocent people being attacked with punishment for defending themselves.
|
On March 22 2012 15:08 Wrongspeedy wrote:
He chased the kid into someones yard............ He is not a police officer. He is not in uniform. What he did is no different than kidnapping, regardless of intent (see the fact where he caused bodily harm aka Killed him). Why doesn't everyone think its okay to run about willynilly telling other people what to do with a loaded weapon? The kid running does not imply guilt either. HE IS NOT A UNIFORM POLICE OFFICER. What he did was illegal even before he shot him.
Nothing illegal about following him......... Really? Really? He stalked him from a vehicle then persued him on foot through peoples yards. Wtf are you talking about. This guy is not a superhero, superheros do not exist, and even in our stories atleast they wear uniforms and can be distuinguished from other citizens. Just because its a free country doesn't mean you get to follow people around and detain them because you feel like it.
If I walked around my neighborhood and someone did that shit to me, I would call the cops on them, and tell them someone was stalking me or trying to kidnap me. This is bullshit, people start to think its okay to act like superheros, then this shit happens. There is a reason only Uniformed Police Officers usually make arrests, because thats the only safe way to arrest someone. The only instance where it would be okay for a citizen to intervene in something like this is if they thought people were at risk of physical harm.
So its okay to wait outside a bar and stop someone from driving home under the influence. Its not okay to stalk and chase someone down to detain (he held someone against their will, which is against the law) them because you don't like the way they look.
Put yourself in that kids shoes, and tell me that guy wasn't doing anything wrong or against the law.
I'll capitalize this so it is clear: NO ONE THINKS THAT WHAT THE GUY DID IS OKAY, CHASING HIM WAS A REALLY STUPID MOVE. What we are unsure of is EXACTLY what law he broke and so far, I haven't found any. As stated in other posts, stalking or harassing has to be done repeatedly for it to be covered. You can say that detaining someone against their will is a crime but the Florida STATUTE says differently. It is only a crime if you do it with a certain intent; read it for yourself if you don't believe me.
I definitely think what the guy did was stupid. I was almost certainly wrong. I am not sure if it was illegal yet tho.
|
On March 22 2012 15:14 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:08 Wrongspeedy wrote:
He chased the kid into someones yard............ He is not a police officer. He is not in uniform. What he did is no different than kidnapping, regardless of intent (see the fact where he caused bodily harm aka Killed him). Why doesn't everyone think its okay to run about willynilly telling other people what to do with a loaded weapon? The kid running does not imply guilt either. HE IS NOT A UNIFORM POLICE OFFICER. What he did was illegal even before he shot him.
Nothing illegal about following him......... Really? Really? He stalked him from a vehicle then persued him on foot through peoples yards. Wtf are you talking about. This guy is not a superhero, superheros do not exist, and even in our stories atleast they wear uniforms and can be distuinguished from other citizens. Just because its a free country doesn't mean you get to follow people around and detain them because you feel like it.
If I walked around my neighborhood and someone did that shit to me, I would call the cops on them, and tell them someone was stalking me or trying to kidnap me. This is bullshit, people start to think its okay to act like superheros, then this shit happens. There is a reason only Uniformed Police Officers usually make arrests, because thats the only safe way to arrest someone. The only instance where it would be okay for a citizen to intervene in something like this is if they thought people were at risk of physical harm.
So its okay to wait outside a bar and stop someone from driving home under the influence. Its not okay to stalk and chase someone down to detain (he held someone against their will, which is against the law) them because you don't like the way they look.
Put yourself in that kids shoes, and tell me that guy wasn't doing anything wrong or against the law.
I'll capitalize this so it is clear: NO ONE THINKS THAT WHAT THE GUY DID IS OKAY, CHASING HIM WAS A REALLY STUPID MOVE. What we are unsure of is EXACTLY what law he broke and so far, I haven't found any. As stated in other posts, stalking or harassing has to be done repeatedly for it to be covered. You can say that detaining someone against their will is a crime but the Florida STATUTE says differently. It is only a crime if you do it with a certain intent; read it for yourself if you don't believe me. I definitely think what the guy did was stupid. I was almost certainly wrong. I am not sure if it was illegal yet tho.
This is whats fucked up about laws. Just because there isn't a law about something, its okay. Or something is "okay" because there is a law about it. When did morals and living together in this place become so black and white. It pisses me off thats why I sound the way I do. I know why officers wear uniforms, clearly George has no fucking clue how bad it looks from someones elses POV when he is chasing this kid around. In his mind it may have been all fine and dandy, but thats not an excuse.
And I edited one of my other posts to say what he was doing is Menacing. And if you don't think it fits the description of Menacing I can guerentee you people have been slapped with Menacing that didn't deserve it. Clearly from the kids POV, this guy was Menacing.
|
On March 22 2012 15:12 Jugan wrote:
In the circumstance you mentioned it would be quite clear that's acting in self defense, there's a CLEAR and IMMINENT threat to the person in question. These are standards that are applied in the status quo before the the legislation in question. That's kinda what SELF DEFENSE is. You SHOULD be held accountable whenever you take a person's life. You can always appeal the ruling if you think the courts got it wrong. In the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty so chances are if they find you guilty of murder then you probably murdered someone. There's also this thing called "Reasonable Doubt" which would also hold up in court to protect people from a "grey area" ruling, which can be brought about by situations where people are put under extreme stress in situations feel their lives are in imminent danger.
The problem with YOUR legislation is that you completely forgo that process and you don't hold people accountable for the taking of another human being's life. And yeah, actually juries CAN decide whether or not it was justified after it happens, during a trial. That's why we have a trial. To decide whether or a person committed a crime and should be punished for it.
I agree that my example is clear cut self-defense, the problem is that the law doesn't work on common sense and clear cases, it works on precise definitions in statutes that have to cover every case.
I am very familiar with the legal system and how ti works. You cannot appeal a verdict just because you think the jury "got it wrong." When you appeal you have to cite a particular facet of the law or your right that you think the jury violated. An appeal is not a blank check to 'take another look.' Again, nothing about my legislation say that someone can't be brought up on charges. They might be dismissed, but they can still be brought up and stand trial. Obviously, a jury will eventually have to decide if a particular statute applies or not. What we need to make clear in the legislature is exactly what is covered and what isn't, so that people and juries know what is self-defense and what is murder.
|
On March 22 2012 15:11 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Not with a gun, in clear pursuit of them, and then claiming it as self-defense when you kill the person. I'm not clear on Florida's laws, but if that's not illegal, it should be.
overly simplistic.
|
On March 22 2012 15:14 Anytus wrote:
I definitely think what the guy did was stupid. I was almost certainly wrong. I am not sure if it was illegal yet tho.
Because persuing a unarmed minor with a LOADED GUN over a long distance, after being told NOT TO FOLLOW HIM, and then executing him with a close-range shot to the chest after he is screaming or help for over a minute is not illegal at all.
Loaded gun.
Unarmed minor.
Pursuit.
Cries for help.
Close-range shot to the chest.
|
On March 22 2012 15:17 Wrongspeedy wrote:
This is whats fucked up about laws. Just because there isn't a law about something, its okay. Or something is "okay" because there is a law about it. When did morals and living together in this place become so black and white. It pisses me off thats why I sound the way I do. I know why officers wear uniforms, clearly George has no fucking clue how bad it looks from someones elses POV when he is chasing this kid around. In his mind it may have been all fine and dandy, but thats not an excuse.
And I edited one of my other posts to say what he was doing is Menacing. And if you don't think it fits the description of Menacing I can guerentee you people have been slapped with Menacing that didn't deserve it. Clearly from the kids POV, this guy was Menacing.
I totally agree and this is why we have legislatures and courts, to figure these things out. Like all people though, they make mistakes sometimes.
Also, i wanna say that the law is not the be-all end-all of what is right to many people. Adultery is not illegal, but most believe hat it is still wrong.
|
On March 22 2012 15:19 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:12 Jugan wrote:
In the circumstance you mentioned it would be quite clear that's acting in self defense, there's a CLEAR and IMMINENT threat to the person in question. These are standards that are applied in the status quo before the the legislation in question. That's kinda what SELF DEFENSE is. You SHOULD be held accountable whenever you take a person's life. You can always appeal the ruling if you think the courts got it wrong. In the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty so chances are if they find you guilty of murder then you probably murdered someone. There's also this thing called "Reasonable Doubt" which would also hold up in court to protect people from a "grey area" ruling, which can be brought about by situations where people are put under extreme stress in situations feel their lives are in imminent danger.
The problem with YOUR legislation is that you completely forgo that process and you don't hold people accountable for the taking of another human being's life. And yeah, actually juries CAN decide whether or not it was justified after it happens, during a trial. That's why we have a trial. To decide whether or a person committed a crime and should be punished for it. I agree that my example is clear cut self-defense, the problem is that the law doesn't work on common sense and clear cases, it works on precise definitions in statutes that have to cover every case. I am very familiar with the legal system and how ti works. You cannot appeal a verdict just because you think the jury "got it wrong." When you appeal you have to cite a particular facet of the law or your right that you think the jury violated. An appeal is not a blank check to 'take another look.' Again, nothing about my legislation say that someone can't be brought up on charges. They might be dismissed, but they can still be brought up and stand trial. Obviously, a jury will eventually have to decide if a particular statute applies or not. What we need to make clear in the legislature is exactly what is covered and what isn't, so that people and juries know what is self-defense and what is murder.
Then you probably should have thought about that before you KILLED someone. This case is a clear example of how they CAN'T be brought up on charges. WHERE IS THE TRIAL YOU SPEAK OF??? It seems like you don't understand the legal system much at all.
The problem is that you can't make it clear to a point where people know what exactly is self-defense and what is murder. This is why people STAND TRIAL. Because if there is reasonable doubt, if the person felt their life was in imminent danger, then they would be found not guilty. If there is a reasonable doubt of whether or not that person committed murder or acted in self defense, then they are found INNOCENT. But under your legislation they're let go without due process. That is the standard you support when you don't force people to be held accountable in all circumstances of killing another person.
|
On March 22 2012 15:19 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:14 Anytus wrote:
I definitely think what the guy did was stupid. I was almost certainly wrong. I am not sure if it was illegal yet tho.
Because persuing a unarmed minor with a LOADED GUN over a long distance, after being told NOT TO FOLLOW HIM, and then executing him with a close-range shot to the chest after he is screaming or help for over a minute is not illegal at all. Loaded gun. Unarmed minor. Pursuit. Cries for help. Close-range shot to the chest.
I totally agree that it seems like it SHOULD be illegal provided that that's the way things happened. Point to a specific law/statute though. I've been looking for over an hour and I haven't found one. Everything I have tried has had some caveat or exception that makes it not include this case. Based on what the stand your ground law says, the DA would have to prove that he committed a crime BEFORE he shot the kid. Otherwise the law says the shooting is justified because the DA can't prove that he wasn't acting in self-defense. And before he shot the kid I have hit a big nothin' on what law he broke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
