Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1013744]If an 80 year old is attacked by a teenager I'd like the 80 year old to be armed.

There are a lot of people who can kill with a single punch/kick. More amateurish attempts can take longer to kill, affording the victim the opportunity to fight back without being physically even to the aggressor.[/quote]

rat - i really like your somewhat different view of the world but .. if, in trying to make your point, you need to set the parameters as an "80 yr old vs a teenager"or "me vs chuck norris". . . . .maybe your point is a little weak.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013942]are you talking about zimmerman or martin? i am assuming your are kidding and not seriously implying that martin is at fault for not having "gone somewhere safe, call the cops, let them deal with it"... yet the same set of rules wouldnt apply to zimmerman.[/quote]

That was a general recommendation: Don't try to confront a pursuer/harasser, you're playing into their hands if they want an altercation.

My take on it is Martin resented Zimmerman following him and thought it would be a good idea to confront him.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1013788]

How? I can imagine any number of ways. Been on the bottom of a fight and needed to pull a knife while being choked? It's a brawl my man. Shit happens. "you would imagine a long struggle"? Martin is angry, is staring him in the eye as he does the "pound" and momentarily loses track of Z's hands; taking advantage of the momentary lapse of his opponent, Z fumbles his gun out and gets a lucky shot off. Not saying that's how it happened but it's one of a myriad of ways a moment can turn a fight.



[/quote]

you said Mr. Good's testimony was very helpful for the defense but ... he testified that it appeared the lighter skinned person was on the bottom and that PUNCHES were being thrown but he couldnt tell if the PUNCHES were landing and he also sd just bc someone is on top doesnt mean the person on the bottom couldnt be punching back . . . (technically i think Mr. Good qualified "punches" as being movement of arms). I dont think Mr. Good's testimony supports Zimmerman's assertion that he was getting his skull bashed in and he thought he was going to die ..

but this comes to what i am starting to think is the whole issue of the case:

[B]Is it justifiable to shoot someone because you are losing a fist fight?[/B]

I clearly say "hell no". Zimmerman voluntarily put himself in this position. he wanted to act like a tough guy . . but when the moment of truth arrived, he was really a wimp.

we cant have citizens totting guns, creating confrontational situations and then allow them to kill others because they were losing the confrontation.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013944]rat - i really like your somewhat different view of the world but .. if, in trying to make your point, you need to set the parameters as an "80 yr old vs a teenager"or "me vs chuck norris". . . . .maybe your point is a little weak.[/quote]

Exaggeration in order to highlight the point, nothing more.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1013946]That was a general recommendation: Don't try to confront a pursuer/harasser, you're playing into their hands if they want an altercation.

My take on it is Martin resented Zimmerman following him and thought it would be a good idea to confront him.[/quote]

i would resent someone following me around to.

and if words escalate to a fist fight ... you cant shot the other person if you are not in reasonable fear of your own life.

not reasonable fear of getting beat up or getting a black eye or reasonable fear that you are going to the hospital .... but reasonable fear of imminent death.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1013950]Exaggeration in order to highlight the point, nothing more.[/quote]

rat - im just surprised on your view. i thought you would support the notion that things should be handled with fists.

dont you think it is a wimp move to shoot an unarmed person just because they are winning the fight?

i mean come on. weve all been in fist fights. they are scary. your addrenalin is pumping, your muscles get lascitity running through them but dang it man ... be a man and accept the consequences of a fair fight.

ive been beaten, jumped, knocked unconscious etc .. it happens. especially if you take it upon yourself to confront others and play mall cop.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013948]but this comes to what i am starting to think is the whole issue of the case:

[B]Is it justifiable to shot someone because you are losing a fist fight?[/B][/quote]

If you are in fear for your life, and you're not the aggressor, yes.

[quote=over the mountain;1013948]I clearly say "hell no". Zimmerman voluntarily put himself in this position. he wanted to act like a tough guy . . but when the moment of truth arrived, he was really a wimp.[/quote]

Your perception.

[quote=over the mountain;1013948]we cant have citizens totting guns, creating confrontational situations and then allow them to kill others because they were losing the confrontation.[/quote]

Again, that's your perception. Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked sketchy, Martin resented being followed and confronted Zimmerman.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Why is it assumed Zimmerman want a cofrontation? From his past reporting it seems he was more a person who was reporter of these people and not someone who wanted a cofrontation. Seems from Martins own GF he was the one that doubled back around and cofronted Zimmerman.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1013792]And I'll beat the crap out of you and then sue your ass into the poor house for starting the fight.

And I'll win again.[/quote]

lol this is funny to me.

under your logic and seeming support of zimmerman's defense - garyclark could just shoot you dead during the fight then point to the state v. zimmerman case as precedent that you can kill someone because they were winning the fist fight.

basically if zimmerman gets off - it totally changes the agreed upon rules of combat i thought all guys understood.

this is a bad case for pro-gun advocates imo.

edit - im not a criminal defense or FL atty but .. im guessing "self defense"is an affirmative defense and zimmerman has the burden of proving he was 1) not they aggressor, 2) he was in reasonable fear of his own life (not safety but life) and 3) there were no other non-lethal alternatives available.

i think he needs to take the stand to satisfy his burden. Mr. Good's testimony shows it was a fist fight, nothing more.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;1013957]Why is it assumed Zimmerman want a cofrontation? From his past reporting it seems he was more a person who was reporter of these people and not someone who wanted a cofrontation. Seems from Martins own GF he was the one that doubled back around and cofronted Zimmerman.[/quote]

id like to know the exact routes each took as well and exactly what zimmerman did from the time he left his truck to the fight.

i read the article linked by someone were it tries to re-patch zimmerman and martin's foot steps but .... it was highly bias towards zimmerman with huge leaps in logic and fact twisting.

to answer you question FD - if guess bc of zimmerman's confrontational words used on the dispatch call as well as the dispathcer telling him to not follow martin.

plus he did get out of his truck which is more than "observe and report" and seemingly followed martin - now im sure the counter argument to that would be that he had to get out of his truck to further "observe" martin bc he went on a foot path where zimmerman couldnt visually follow him in his truck ..

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013958]it totally changes the agreed upon rules of combat i thought all guys understood.
[/quote]

Dude, FFS! The first rule of Fight Club!

Heck!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013959]id like to know the exact routes each took as well and exactly what zimmerman did from the time he left his truck to the fight.

i read the article linked by someone were it tries to re-patch zimmerman and martin's foot steps but .... it was highly bias towards zimmerman with huge leaps in logic and fact twisting.

to answer you question FD - [B]if guess bc of zimmerman's confrontational words used on the dispatch call as well as the dispathcer telling him to not follow martin.[/B]

plus he did get out of his truck which is more than "observe and report" and seemingly followed martin - now im sure the counter argument to that would be that he had to get out of his truck to further "observe" martin bc he went on a foot path where zimmerman couldnt visually follow him in his truck ..[/quote]

This is one thing that drives me nuts. What makes you think that Zimmerman did NOT heed the 911 dispatchers advice to stop following Martin? To me, it [I]clearly [/I]sounds like Zimmerman stops following Martin once the dispatcher suggested he shouldn't.

OTM - lets suppose the facts were:

1) Zimmerman reported a suspicious person to 911; 2) Zimmerman followed and even initially ran after said suspicious person once the person starting running; 3) Stopped following the person perhaps because of a 911 operators non-legally bonding recommendation; 4) Was attacked from behind by someone that was likely the same suspicious person from 1-2 minutes earlier; 5) Was reasonably fearful of life or significant bodily injury during attack; 6) Shot assailant because of fear

Would you still think Zimmerman was guilty of murder? If not, what would have to change for you to find Zimmerman guilty?

Also what confrontational words did Zimmerman use to the 911 operator?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1013993]This is one thing that drives me nuts. What makes you think that Zimmerman did NOT heed the 911 dispatchers advice to stop following Martin? To me, it [I]clearly [/I]sounds like Zimmerman stops following Martin once the dispatcher suggested he shouldn't.

OTM - lets suppose the facts were:

1) Zimmerman reported a suspicious person to 911; 2) Zimmerman followed and even initially ran after said suspicious person once the person starting running; 3) Stopped following the person perhaps because of a 911 operators non-legally bonding recommendation; 4) Was attacked from behind by someone that was likely the same suspicious person from 1-2 minutes earlier; 5) Was reasonably fearful of life or significant bodily injury during attack; 6) Shot assailant because of fear

Would you still think Zimmerman was guilty of murder? If not, what would have to change for you to find Zimmerman guilty?

Also what confrontational words did Zimmerman use to the 911 operator?[/quote]

1) I never said Zimmerman didnt stop following Martin once he asked not to. If he did or didnt, we dont know.

2) zimmerman said Martin was running to the back entrance .. I assume this means away from Zimmerman

3) why do you assume zimmerman stopped running after martin?

4) there is no evidence to support Martin attacked zimmerman from behind. The girl's testimony who was talking to martin at the time said she heard another voice say "what are you doing here"or something along those lines ...... also zimmerman in his own video re-enactment never said he was ambushed or blind sided. Zimmerman said they were face to face.

not sure why or where this "attacked from behind" thing came from. 100% not true fro everything ive seen.

5) just because you are getting punched in the face doesnt mean you get to kill someone.

6) maybe manslaughter 1 or 2 if that is available.

I understand i apparently have a different opinion on this case than most others .. i refuse to accept the fact that you can shoot someone bc they are winning a fist fight.

what ever the jury does, i am fine with it.

[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed]George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

read the dispatch transcript then watch zimmerman's re-enactment video.

zimmerman makes so many false or misleading statements in the re-enactment video

he says the dispathcer told zimmerman to get to somewhere where he could see where martin went = false

he sd he told the dispatcher martin was circling his car = false

he sd he had to get out of his truck to look for a street sign = really? thats the reason why you got out of your truck in you gated community? because you didnt know where you were in a neighborhood you citizen patrol? so you didnt get out of your truck to perhaps ... i dont know ... follow or confront this suspicious character?

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4]George Zimmerman Re-enactment (Full Video) - YouTube[/url]

i had to stop watching the reenactmetn video but ive seen it before ... imo he is guilty and is either out-right lying or at least severely minimizing his actions.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014054]Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?[/quote]

I am becoming convinced this is all a show. The public outrage over this case was so quick and powerful I think it may have forced local law enforcement to push through a trial when they had a weak case. I'm not so sure this even goes to trial in a vacuum (simply based on the available evidence).

Don't confuse that with me thinking he is innocent. I strongly believe he bears a mountain load of the responsibility for the entire situation. I am not presently convinced he has been proven legally guilty of anything though. Which is unfortunate because I [B]think[/B] he is probably guilty.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force [I]simply[/I] b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - [I]and[/I] (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution [I][B]must prove beyond a reasonable doubt[/B][/I] that either Zimmerman started the fight [I]or[/I] there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There [I]is[/I] lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until [I]proven[/I] guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he [I]may[/I] have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a [I]prima facia[/I] showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z [I]wasn't[/I] reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1014061]I am becoming convinced this is all a show. The public outrage over this case was so quick and powerful I think it may have forced local law enforcement to push through a trial when they had a weak case. I'm not so sure this even goes to trial in a vacuum (simply based on the available evidence).

Don't confuse that with me thinking he is innocent. I strongly believe he bears a mountain load of the responsibility for the entire situation. I am not presently convinced he has been proven legally guilty of anything though. Which is unfortunate because I [B]think[/B] he is probably guilty.[/quote]

I agree with this 100%.

My personal speculative belief is that Z aggressively confronted TM and a pushing and shoving match ensued which escalated into a beat down by Martin.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014054]Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?[/quote]

It seems more like they have very little to work with.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014067]
My personal speculative belief is that Z aggressively confronted TM and a pushing and shoving match ensued which escalated into a beat down by Martin.[/quote]

I believe from what we know so far that Martin didn't like the creepy looking cracker following him, was emboldened by a sense of outrage and weed, and confronted Zimmerman. He physically attacked Zimmerman and then Zimmerman overreacted and used his firearm.

Whatever the verdict it's a useful example of why we need to institute [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/books/review/the-anatomy-of-violence-by-adrian-raine.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]Lombroso Centers[/URL] to identify and neuter the intrinsically violent.

Yes, I'll volunteer myself first, if it helps.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014054]Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?[/quote]

I would hope so. They don't have a lot to work with given the lack of evidence on the key fact (who started it). Certainly, I would like to think I would have done more to manage the "bad" evidence. Also, they should have known and be prepped for the EMT's testimony and done what they could to discredit/pre-empt it.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

thanks for your thoughts joe, rat and everyone. I am going to attempt to do actual work while at work today. unlike yesterday where this trial consumed a large portion of my day.

i do encourage everyone to watch the full 14 mins of zimmerman's video re-enactment.

edit -
"Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda began by asking the judge to strike from the record a statement Detective Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found credible Zimmerman's account of how he got into a fight with Trayvon Martin. De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn't allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued it was proper because Serino was vetting Zimmerman's veracity in his probe." [url=http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-detective-statements-zimmerman-133901090.html]Judge strikes detective statements on Zimmerman[/url]

are you effing serious. this is a major and well-known no-no. No officer shoudl ever say they believe a person's statements, versions of events or talk about veracity. they are there to only testify as to what they saw and heard from the named parties to the case or in-court testimonial witnesses.

this detective (who i am sure testifies a lot) had to have done so intentionally. this is such a effing no-no and he knows better. id be outraged if i was the DA. just a down right dirty tactic to slip inadmissible evidence in. and what is the cure? a curative instruction from the judge for the jury to disregard the fact that they heard a detective (a position of honor and trust) with years of training and experience say he believes zimmerman!!!

id ask for a mistrial. at least the DA has an appellate issue now.

a defense atty did this to me 2 months ago. i was outraged. he claimed "opps i didnt know judge . . " .. the judge said well, what you said is material blah blah blah but i dont find it intentional so mistrial denied . . . defense attrneys like that and detectives like that are scum . . .

they know exactly what they are doing and know the judge will only give a curative instruction . .

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1013998]read the dispatch transcript then watch zimmerman's re-enactment video.

zimmerman makes so many false or misleading statements in the re-enactment video

he says the dispathcer told zimmerman to get to somewhere where he could see where martin went = false

he sd he told the dispatcher martin was circling his car = false

he sd he had to get out of his truck to look for a street sign = really? thats the reason why you got out of your truck in you gated community? because you didnt know where you were in a neighborhood you citizen patrol? so you didnt get out of your truck to perhaps ... i dont know ... follow or confront this suspicious character?

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4"]George Zimmerman Re-enactment (Full Video) - YouTube[/URL]

i had to stop watching the reenactmetn video but ive seen it before ... imo he is guilty and is either out-right lying or at least severely minimizing his actions.[/quote]


Ill try and check this out.

With regards to your first post, im just trying to figure out what would it take for you to not think Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. In your opinion once Zimmerman started following Martin, does that in your opinion place responsibility on Zimmerman regardless if he stopped and turned around?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

So as im starting to think ole Z might get off in the criminal trial I start wondering about the likelihood Zimmerman has in winning a civil suite (prob not great). And I do one of those internet searches and I read this:

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense"]Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com[/URL]

If you guys remember Zimmerman waived his right to a "pre-trial" "stand your ground" review/request in which he could seek immunity towards criminal AND civil liability from a judge. However, based of off the linked article, now I cant help but to think that theres a chance that this thing wont even go to jury decision.

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

To me it sounds like Z's defense team is thinking we got 2 trials in 1 going on right now; 1) to throw the whole thing out based off of the stand your ground rights, and 2) if that doesn't work then let the jury decide. Am I correct in the thinking that nothing was really waived by Z's defense team, rather the stand your ground review was just postponed?

Also, any ideas as to what type of civil liability Z is at risk of? I suspect Martin's family could be awarded a huge payout from a jury but wouldn't the big bucks be from punitive damages? And arnt punitive damages dispensable through bankruptcy? Whats the compensatory damages for killing someone when little to no medical bills were incurred?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014171]I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.[/quote]

/end thread

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014161]Ill try and check this out.

With regards to your first post, im just trying to figure out what would it take for you to not think Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. In your opinion once Zimmerman started following Martin, does that in your opinion place responsibility on Zimmerman regardless if he stopped and turned around?[/quote]

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

[QUOTE=Gary84Clark;1014169]Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.[/QUOTE]

But it does alter perception, right?

[QUOTE=Gary84Clark;1014174]He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.[/QUOTE]

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.

[QUOTE=Gary84Clark;1014171]I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;1014185]I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.[/quote]

Why?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014190]Why?[/quote]

Hung jury.

Else I'm leaning towards not guilty.

Doesn't make me happy, but the prosecution is stinking it up.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014181]Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.[/quote]

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult, because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong? not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014193]So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?" [/quote]

Dafuq?

[quote=Chico23231;1014193]They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult,[/quote]

How old does 6'2" look?

[quote=Chico23231;1014193] because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong? [/quote]

Yeah, once you turn 18 you get that shit squared away immediately.

[quote=Chico23231;1014193] not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child[/quote]

Your example is laughably extreme, no one is suggesting taunting a toddler and then drawing down, unless it's an exceedingly vicious toddler, obviously.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014193]So i can legally walk around my neighborhood [I]egging on teenagers to assault me [/I]and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?" [/quote]

1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on [I]to assault him[/I]". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened [I]imminent[/I] physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].

[quote=Chico23231;1014193]They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult, because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?[/quote]

See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The [I]only[/I] question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death [I]just[/I] b/c he is a teen.

[quote=Chico23231;1014193]where am i wrong? not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child[/quote]

"The right to kill a child"? Could you please couch in more emotionally charged language?

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014198]1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on [I]to assault him[/I]". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened [I]imminent[/I] physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].



See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The [I]only[/I] question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death [I]just[/I] b/c he is a teen.



"The right to kill a child"? C[B]ould you please couch in more emotionally charged language? [/B]

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. [B]While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative[/B].[/quote]

im sure you never hear that being a lawyer :) Probably as emotionally charged as the leak that T is a thug gangster. We know teenagers never act tough in general and dress in hoodies these days.

Yeah the age thing is very relevant in my trying to make my point, but that is a good way to put it above.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014197]Dafuq?



How old does 6'2" look?



[/quote]

Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today. The rapper Game is 6' 2" and photos of Game are the photos conservatives have been trying to pass off as Trayvon. Stick to facts rat. Fist fights don't give you a right to murder. That is unusual. He was not armed.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014198]1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on [I]to assault him[/I]". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened [I]imminent[/I] physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].



See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The [I]only[/I] question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death [I]just[/I] b/c he is a teen.



"The right to kill a child"? Could you please couch in more emotionally charged language?

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative.[/quote]

Joe I disagree, you can't claim your life was in danger and then kill people. Sorry, proclaiming your life is in danger has to be supported by evidence. Z's injuries were characterized as insignificant by the doctors today. He killed someone we know this. Was his life in danger? The person he shot was not armed. Even cops can't get away with that.