|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 28 2013 04:26 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:25 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:22 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 04:20 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 04:08 SKC wrote: And if this discussion is about what the self-defense laws should be, I don't think this is the time or place to have it. I think Ran's argument is that its okay to shoot someone who punched you once. I don't know how relevant that is to self defense. He clearly didn't say that. He says it's ok to shoot someone if you feel you are in danger of great bodily harm, in line with self-defense laws. That can come from a single punch or not, it's you who is making it seem like he wants to shoot anyone who gives him a slap. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself.
If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it. Clearly he didn't say that. Sure, why not? If he's going to continue to beat on me, what is his intent at this point? I'm already on the ground, and out of the fight. If you continue at me, then I believe I have the right to use lethal force to protect myself. Stop picking apart posts without context. A single punch, if the threat that he will continue fighting remains, can be enough for self-defense laws. He clearly doesn't mean a case where the guy punches him and walks away, and he shoots him in the back after getting up. This is a really dumb discussion and completelly off-topic. I quoted his complete posting, there is nothing to pick apart. That was the whole posting.
You quoted me, and two lines of text from him. That's not the whole posting. It's an ongoing conversation that needs multiple posts to make sense of. He later explained what he means with "punching".
|
Why are they going into so much detail about where you have to stand to see the address, I missed the last 20 mins or so, how is this relevant?
|
On June 28 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:26 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 04:25 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:22 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 04:20 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 04:08 SKC wrote: And if this discussion is about what the self-defense laws should be, I don't think this is the time or place to have it. I think Ran's argument is that its okay to shoot someone who punched you once. I don't know how relevant that is to self defense. He clearly didn't say that. He says it's ok to shoot someone if you feel you are in danger of great bodily harm, in line with self-defense laws. That can come from a single punch or not, it's you who is making it seem like he wants to shoot anyone who gives him a slap. So what am I supposed to do? Take the punch and do nothing about it? The entire point of having a gun is to protect yourself.
If someone punches me, and I have a weapon on me to protect myself, you bet I'm going to use it. Clearly he didn't say that. Sure, why not? If he's going to continue to beat on me, what is his intent at this point? I'm already on the ground, and out of the fight. If you continue at me, then I believe I have the right to use lethal force to protect myself. Stop picking apart posts without context. A single punch, if the threat that he will continue fighting remains, can be enough for self-defense laws. He clearly doesn't mean a case where the guy punches him and walks away, and he shoots him in the back after getting up. This is a really dumb discussion and completelly off-topic. I quoted his complete posting, there is nothing to pick apart. That was the whole posting. You quoted me, and two lines of text from him. That's not the whole posting. Unless you mean another post of yours.
Yeah i quoted you, and a complete posting of him where he said what you said was "clearly never said". I didn't cherrypick his post, that quote was his entire posting. He clarified one post(edit: maybe two or smth) later after i quoted you, so i don't get what you're trying to tell me here. The two lines of text are a complete posting of him.
|
On June 28 2013 04:28 Juggernaut477 wrote: Why are they going into so much detail about where you have to stand to see the address, I missed the last 20 mins or so, how is this relevant?
I don't really think there is any relevance, hes just kinda stalling or trying to find something. Maybe its a tactic to get the witness off their guard by having them answer a ton of meaningless questions.
|
On June 28 2013 04:28 Juggernaut477 wrote: Why are they going into so much detail about where you have to stand to see the address, I missed the last 20 mins or so, how is this relevant? just foundation. setting up the scene for the coming questions.
|
is he about to impeach his own witness? lol
edit: maybe not.
|
On June 28 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:28 Juggernaut477 wrote: Why are they going into so much detail about where you have to stand to see the address, I missed the last 20 mins or so, how is this relevant? just foundation. setting up the scene for the coming questions. Not for this witness it seems.
|
A wild Dr. Seuss appeared!
|
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say.
|
This guys doesn't know where he is going does he?
|
On June 28 2013 04:45 Ghostcom wrote: This guys doesn't know where he is going does he? sure he does.
|
God, that objection micro.
Hearsay!
Sustained.
|
On June 28 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:45 Ghostcom wrote: This guys doesn't know where he is going does he? sure he does.
He sure lost me.
|
Do they have a makeup artist or something for the people in the courtroom?
|
On June 28 2013 04:28 Juggernaut477 wrote: Why are they going into so much detail about where you have to stand to see the address, I missed the last 20 mins or so, how is this relevant?
Most likely in preparation for GZ's statement that he was going various places to try to get an address for the police.
|
On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote: The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say.
Not first prosecution witness that statement applies to...
|
On June 28 2013 04:47 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:45 Ghostcom wrote: This guys doesn't know where he is going does he? sure he does. He sure lost me. he established that she couldnt exclude that trayvon made certain statements during the fight. he is now establishing that its a dangerous neighborhood and they took steps to protect the neighborhood. now he is going through the reason why zimmerman didnt know where he was. etc.
|
If there's one things that I feel is very diferent from "TV show courtroom" is how the lawyers asks questions in a specific stand, only aproaching the witness when he has to show her something. In TV they ussually just stand up behind the table and move around kinda randomly. It really kills the "slamming their hands, screaming questions to the witness to force a reaction" effect.
|
On June 28 2013 04:50 SKC wrote: If there's one things that I feel is very diferent from "TV show courtroom" is how the lawyers asks questions in a specific stand, only aproaching the witness when he has to show her something. In TV they ussually just stand up behind the table and move around kinda randomly. It really kills the "slamming their hands, screaming questions to the witness to force a reaction" effect. you have to ask permission to approach the witness usually.
|
On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote: The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux?
|
|
|
|