Florida Teen Shot

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Just don't make no sense to me. How can it be legal to carry a gun for self-defense, but then illegal to use it? Seems you can't have it both ways.

This case really is about removing legal guns from the citizenry.

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and then start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Just don't make no sense to me. How can it be legal to carry a gun for self-defense, but then illegal to use it? Seems you can't have it both ways.

This case really is about removing legal guns from the citizenry.

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and the start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences?

I agree. Welcome back. Where have you been?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Just don't make no sense to me. How can it be legal to carry a gun for self-defense, but then illegal to use it? Seems you can't have it both ways.

This case really is about removing legal guns from the citizenry.

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and then start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences?

I have no reason to believe he picked a fight with him. Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and then start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences?

I have no reason to believe he picked a fight with him.

The facts of the case, as reported by the media (which means they should be taken with a grain of salt) seem to indicate that is exactly what happened. However, I wasn't there, and I strongly suspect you weren't either, so neither of us know for certain.

Quote

Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

I disagree. Some Florida state legislators have also stated that the stand your ground law was not intended to protect from prosecution people who do such things.

* * * * *

Let's say, for arguments sake, that Zimmerman did start the fight in some manner or another. His conviction of 2nd degree murder or felony manslaughter would be the best thing that could happen for the right to carry lobby. It would provide an example that they could use to show that those who carry and use guns irresponsibly can and do face consequences, so fears that such laws will result in more violence are unfounded. On the other hand, if Zimmerman gets away with it, it's a huge propaganda win for the anti-carry lobby. It will be portrayed as "proof" that a concealed carry license is really just a license to murder. And enough people will believe it that that councilpersons and legislators will have to listen to them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Welcome back. Where have you been?

Thanks. I just took some time away.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mirage62 0]

The ONLY "fact" that supports that Z "started" the fight is that he follow M and following someone isn't starting a fight. EVERYTHING from that point on is guesses. If your on Z side he did nothing, on M side he started a fight.

Wha little physical evidence there is supports Z. The fact that they can't seem to prove that Z is a racist helps Z case also.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and then start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences?

I have no reason to believe he picked a fight with him.

The facts of the case, as reported by the media (which means they should be taken with a grain of salt) seem to indicate that is exactly what happened. However, I wasn't there, and I strongly suspect you weren't either, so neither of us know for certain.

Quote

Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

I disagree. Some Florida state legislators have also stated that the stand your ground law was not intended to protect from prosecution people who do such things.

* * * * *

Let's say, for arguments sake, that Zimmerman did start the fight in some manner or another. His conviction of 2nd degree murder or felony manslaughter would be the best thing that could happen for the right to carry lobby. It would provide an example that they could use to show that those who carry and use guns irresponsibly can and do face consequences, so fears that such laws will result in more violence are unfounded. On the other hand, if Zimmerman gets away with it, it's a huge propaganda win for the anti-carry lobby. It will be portrayed as "proof" that a concealed carry license is really just a license to murder. And enough people will believe it that that councilpersons and legislators will have to listen to them.

No one will ever know the 'fact' in this case well enuf to suit the other side. This case will not be decided on 'facts' -- it will be decided on 'fear' -- partly the fear of what will happen if Z gets off, to my mind. Personally I believe they will find him guilty of something regardless of his guilt or innocence, in order to make an example of him...

And I don't agree with that.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The fact that they can't seem to prove that Z is a racist helps Z case also.

it's not pertinent to the case - unless we are now in a thought police state

only actions matter

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense."

That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this.

[DanG 1]

Quote

it's not pertinent to the case - unless we are now in a thought police state

I beg to differ. Thinking is all that matters.

As long as you're thinking about the children...

- Dan G

[normiss 801]

It's VERY pertinent to the case, which is why the FBI investigated the possibility of a racially motivated hate crime...which would have ratcheted up the severity of the charges quite significantly.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact that they can't seem to prove that Z is a racist helps Z case also.

it's not pertinent to the case - unless we are now in a thought police state

only actions matter

I disagree. The charge of racism is certaainly important to this case. That is what has been claimed as GZ's motivation. That he was a "white-hispanic" and that he became suspicious of TM because he was black. Race is why Sharpton and the other poverty pimps including the New Black Panthers were in Florida.

Now that it has been shown that GZ was not in any way a racist, the prosecution has lost a huge part of their argument.

[rehmwa 2]

So all you guys are admitting is that we actually are in a thought control police state

which was really my point


for the children

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's VERY pertinent to the case, which is why the FBI investigated the possibility of a racially motivated hate crime....

they investigated that aspect of it because of political pressure due to PC nonsense

hate crimes are a joke -

kill someone because of their skin
or kill someone because you don't like their shirt
or kill someone because they bumped you accidentally in the bar
or kill someone to steal their wallet

once you eliminate killing for defense or protection, the rest are illegal killing - why is one worse than the other?



if George Zimmerman would have walked up behind a kid in a hoodie and shot him while never ever seeing the kid's skin color - how can someone claim that that would be any LESS of a travesty?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>>The fact that they can't seem to prove that Z is a racist helps Z case also.

>it's not pertinent to the case

Of course it is. It establishes motive, which is part of any criminal trial. (Or would if it were established.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So all you guys are admitting is that we actually are in a thought control police state

which was really my point


for the children

Questioning someones motivation to commit a crime has always been part of our legal system. It's also one of the main tool police use during criminal investigations.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Personally I believe they will find him guilty of something regardless of his guilt or innocence, in order to make an example of him.

I'm not so sure they will. Look at the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. The jury, having seen all of the evidence, did not see things the same way as those who followed the case through the media.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense."

That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this.

The Florida Statute anticipates and explicitly allows shooting somebody in such a situation. The text of the statute includes some requirements but you absolutely can pick a fight with somebody, back off (or give the appearance of same) in some manner, and then shoot them and claim Stand your Ground.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway, yes, if you believe a person should have a legal right to carry a gun for self defense, then I would think he would have the right to defend himself even if he started the fight (or maybe the argument that led to the fight).

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense."

That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this.

The Florida Statute anticipates and explicitly allows shooting somebody in such a situation. The text of the statute includes some requirements but you absolutely can pick a fight with somebody, back off (or give the appearance of same) in some manner, and then shoot them and claim Stand your Ground.

The hypothetical question that was asked, which this was in response to, did not have the aggressor backing off at any point.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact that they can't seem to prove that Z is a racist helps Z case also.

it's not pertinent to the case - unless we are now in a thought police state

only actions matter

This is 100% wrong. In almost all crimes, there must be criminal intent in addition to the physical act.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

Edit to add: everyone agrees GZ shot TM. The only question is whether he had any criminal intent when he did so.

[normiss 801]

Motion to disqualify filed today.
again.

[rushmc 23]

A fact many who paid attention realized a long long time ago

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/13/FBI-no-racist-motive-Trayvon-case

Quote

FBI: No Racist Motive in Trayvon Killing

Of course this will not stop the Holder justice department from claiming the opposite.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

A fact many who paid attention realized a long long time ago

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/13/FBI-no-racist-motive-Trayvon-case

Quote

FBI: No Racist Motive in Trayvon Killing

Of course this will not stop the Holder justice department from claiming the opposite.

And if he gets acquitted in a first trial, they'll bring him up on new charges for another...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Saying the judge had made disparaging remarks about their client’s character, George Zimmerman’s legal team asked Friday for Kenneth R. Lester Jr. to step down from the case.

Zimmerman’s attorneys filed a motion in circuit court saying Zimmerman cannot get a fair trial because Lester used “gratuitous, disparaging” language in a bail order last week. Friday’s filing also says Lester has advocated for Zimmerman to be prosecuted for additional crimes, offered personal opinion about evidence and has threatened their client with contempt charges.

“Mr. Zimmerman has lost faith in the objectivity of this court and has a reasonable, well-founded fear that he will not receive a fair trial by this court,” the document said.

Zimmerman’s attorneys particularly took issue with two of the judge’s comments: “Under any definition, the defendant has flouted the system,” citing the definition of flout, and “The defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so.”

In response, the state attorney’s office said the state objects to Zimmerman trying to disqualify Lester and it will file a response to the motion early next week.
. . .

The judge’s order last week said that the reset bail of $1 million was not intended as a punishment but as an amount that assured the court that Zimmerman would not abscond.

In his ruling, Lester wrote about the first bond hearing and noted an undisclosed second passport kept in Zimmerman’s safe deposit box.

“Notably, together with the passport, the money only had to be hidden for a short time for him to leave the country if the defendant made a quick decision to flee,” the judge said. “It is entirely reasonable for this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people’s money.”

In its filing Friday, the defense team said the court had reached a “bold” conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee the country to avoid prosecution, but that his plans were thwarted.

http://wtvr.com/2012/07/14/zimmerman-asks-for-new-judge/

[kelpdiver 2]

seemed like the solution to the money situation was to transfer it to the control of his defense attorneys. Then he's back to being broke, but can still pay for his expensive (and unnecessary) murder 2 defense.