|
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 26 2012 07:17 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. if you aren't going to bother to read my posts in this thread, you shouldn't assume i have ignored anything. click on my profile, click on posts and you can read through my posts in this thread. then you will see that i have said numerous times that the duty to retreat does not matter if the kid was on top of him pummeling him in the face as stated by "John." Then why do you keep going on about SYG?
because thats what the political cartoon is addressing? i was responding to the political cartoon.
|
On March 26 2012 07:20 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. Well he surely didn't have Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman called 911 and was told not to pursuit.
Zimmerman wasn't obliged to take orders from the 911 dispatcher.
|
On March 26 2012 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:17 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. if you aren't going to bother to read my posts in this thread, you shouldn't assume i have ignored anything. click on my profile, click on posts and you can read through my posts in this thread. then you will see that i have said numerous times that the duty to retreat does not matter if the kid was on top of him pummeling him in the face as stated by "John." Then why do you keep going on about SYG? because thats what the political cartoon is addressing? i was responding to the political cartoon.
I see. Well, as I said before, "reasonable" does not mean "any excuse will do".
|
On March 26 2012 07:25 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:20 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. Well he surely didn't have Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman called 911 and was told not to pursuit. Zimmerman wasn't obliged to take orders from the 911 dispatcher.
Still, he surely couldn't be standing his ground when he actively pursued and confronted someone else and wounded up shooting him.
|
On March 26 2012 07:32 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:20 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. Well he surely didn't have Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman called 911 and was told not to pursuit. Zimmerman wasn't obliged to take orders from the 911 dispatcher. Still, he surely couldn't be standing his ground when he actively pursued and confronted someone else and wounded up shooting him.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
|
On March 26 2012 07:32 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:20 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. Well he surely didn't have Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman called 911 and was told not to pursuit. Zimmerman wasn't obliged to take orders from the 911 dispatcher. Still, he surely couldn't be standing his ground when he actively pursued and confronted someone else and wounded up shooting him.
You seem to have skipped over the part where Martin had him on the ground and was beating on his face.
|
On March 26 2012 07:35 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:32 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:20 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:10 Freddybear wrote:On March 26 2012 07:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. + Show Spoiler + this is the stupidity of a law that doesn't require you to retreat. two people could fear for their lives and justifiably kill each other without any attempt to prevent conflict. It's pretty hard to believe that you have actually ignored all the statements that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground. There was no "pursuit" at that point in time, and there was no possibility of "retreat" by Zimmerman. Well he surely didn't have Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman called 911 and was told not to pursuit. Zimmerman wasn't obliged to take orders from the 911 dispatcher. Still, he surely couldn't be standing his ground when he actively pursued and confronted someone else and wounded up shooting him. You seem to have skipped over the part where Martin had him on the ground and was beating on his face.
So Zimmerman didn't confront Martin? Martin just randomly attacked Zimmerman?
|
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight?
|
On March 26 2012 07:42 Freddybear wrote:
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight?
Well he surely wasn't asking Martin politely what he was doing, otherwise a fight wouldn't have occurred. It's easy being an aggressive racist prick when you know you're carrying a loaded weapon.
|
On March 26 2012 07:52 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:42 Freddybear wrote:
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight? Well he surely wasn't asking Martin politely what he was doing, otherwise a fight wouldn't have occurred. It's easy being an aggressive racist prick when you know you're carrying a loaded weapon.
The girlfriend overheard the conversation, he asked him "What are you doing here?" and then the phone cut out supposedly. I am not sure why you are assuming he acted like an "aggressive racist prick" when his background paints a very different picture. He was a neighborhood watchmen that probably thought his job entailed more than just calling the cops.
|
On March 26 2012 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:52 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:42 Freddybear wrote:
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight? Well he surely wasn't asking Martin politely what he was doing, otherwise a fight wouldn't have occurred. It's easy being an aggressive racist prick when you know you're carrying a loaded weapon. The girlfriend overheard the conversation, he asked him "What are you doing here?" and then the phone cut out supposedly. I am not sure why you are assuming he acted like an "aggressive racist prick" when his background paints a very different picture. He was a neighborhood watchmen that probably thought his job entailed more than just calling the cops.
Well I saw your prior post concerning the 911 call, but to me the racial slur is pretty clear.
|
On March 26 2012 07:57 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:52 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:42 Freddybear wrote:
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight? Well he surely wasn't asking Martin politely what he was doing, otherwise a fight wouldn't have occurred. It's easy being an aggressive racist prick when you know you're carrying a loaded weapon. The girlfriend overheard the conversation, he asked him "What are you doing here?" and then the phone cut out supposedly. I am not sure why you are assuming he acted like an "aggressive racist prick" when his background paints a very different picture. He was a neighborhood watchmen that probably thought his job entailed more than just calling the cops. Well I saw your prior post concerning the 911 call, but to me the racial slur is pretty clear.
CNN agrees with you. however, the guy says "i wouldn't swear to it in court."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-‘fcking-cns’-trayvon-martin-911-call/
edit: i should note that once you start "enhancing" tapes then you are going into no-mans land. because one expert could enhance it to sound like "coons" and another could do the opposite.
|
On March 26 2012 08:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:57 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 07:52 SpiffD wrote:On March 26 2012 07:42 Freddybear wrote:
So what if he did confront Martin? Was that an excuse for Martin to fight? Well he surely wasn't asking Martin politely what he was doing, otherwise a fight wouldn't have occurred. It's easy being an aggressive racist prick when you know you're carrying a loaded weapon. The girlfriend overheard the conversation, he asked him "What are you doing here?" and then the phone cut out supposedly. I am not sure why you are assuming he acted like an "aggressive racist prick" when his background paints a very different picture. He was a neighborhood watchmen that probably thought his job entailed more than just calling the cops. Well I saw your prior post concerning the 911 call, but to me the racial slur is pretty clear. CNN agrees with you. however, the guy says "i wouldn't swear to it in court." http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-‘fcking-cns’-trayvon-martin-911-call/edit: i should note that once you start "enhancing" tapes then you are going into no-mans land. because one expert could enhance it to sound like "coons" and another could do the opposite.
I don't have the links handy(your edit makes it seem like you aren't going to contend this much, and my quoting you is more to piggyback on that edit), but I know I have seen links with other such experts saying they hear 'punks' and other non racially charged phrases.
|
That comic seems extremely misleading to me... The SYG laws say absolutely nothing about your actual self defense once you are attacked, it's simply a law regarding your behavior BEFORE you are attacked. The law does not give anyone the right to simply kill someone and then claim they were in fear. You have to be actually attacked or threatened with deadly force, for example brandishing a gun, before you can actually claim self defense.
The law does NOT say that you can just kill someone because of a feeling. It just says you have no obligation to run away PRIOR to being attacked.
|
Very nice job on the edit daPhrEAk, the spoiler tags are a nice touch. I would like to add that while Mary Cutcher said she didn't hear/see any fighting, she didn't deny that they may have been fighting a few doors down before what she witnessed/heard.
|
What worries me is that the New N Panther Party putting a 10000 bounty on this dude's head and then churches calling Trayvon a "martyr". Don't you have to fight for something to be considered a martyr when you get killed? I think black america is pulling the race card way too much here, and with so many media outlets saying "WHITE zimmerman, unarmed BLACK trayvon, things are only going to get worse. And these church pastor's are calling an "end to epidemic racism", yet keep referring to the 50's. If you want racism to end, quit calling for an end to it and FORGET ABOUT IT. If everyone forgets racism even exists, then it doesn't!
|
Meanwhile, since this story was picked up by the media, hundreds of young black males killed other young black males and not a single fuck was given.
User was warned for this post
|
Freak, what legal actions if any could be taken against the New Panther Party for putting out this bounty on Zimmermann?
|
|
|
On March 26 2012 07:02 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 06:49 urasyupi2 wrote:
Can we honestly say that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Although it seemed like he was being beaten, I highly doubt that the kid would have used deadly force against him. we dont know that his life was actually in danger because there are conflicting accounts. but actual danger is not necessary, just a reasonable and actual fear. (reasonable means an objective person would feel fear; actual means he actually felt fear.) i am paraphrasing the rule. If only that kid had known his pursuer was fearing for his life. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ShZ0.jpg?1)
ROFL that picture is going to be my new temporary desktop background.
Hopefully there will be more concrete details about this incident before April comes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
