Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:08:47 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 148883 times)
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #300 on: April 17, 2012, 10:41:35 am »

I don't know where the confusion lies here. If Zimmerman stays home, Martin isn't shot. That's it. There's nothing more to it. Zimmerman isn't law enforcement. He had no business following the kid with a loaded handgun. How is this even defendable? -EK
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #301 on: April 17, 2012, 11:00:08 am »

^^^Because it isn't against the law to do any of those things.

Leaving your house is legal.
Following someone is legal.
Carrying a handgun in Zimmerman's case was legal.

Now physically confronting Martin is not legal but we need to see proof of that to see where Zimmerman did anything illegal. You better come up with a stonger argument that that if you want to influence anyone.
Logged
Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #302 on: April 17, 2012, 11:02:49 am »

I don't know where the confusion lies here. If Zimmerman stays home, Martin isn't shot. That's it. There's nothing more to it. Zimmerman isn't law enforcement. He had no business following the kid with a loaded handgun. How is this even defendable? -EK

That part is true, in that if Zimmerman never followed him, then Martin isn't shot. What I don't agree with in your statement is that he did have business following the kid if he thought he was one of the people who have been breaking into houses. He's just trying to do his job of neighborhood watch.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #303 on: April 17, 2012, 11:03:19 am »

I don't know where the confusion lies here. If Zimmerman stays home, Martin isn't shot. That's it. There's nothing more to it. Zimmerman isn't law enforcement. He had no business following the kid with a loaded handgun. How is this even defendable? -EK
If you are walking in front of my mother in law in a grocery store, down the street or even to my mailbox you are being followed by a person with a loaded gun. That isn't a crime in any sense of the word. If she thought you were doing something wrong and continued to follow you it still isn't a crime. How is that not understandable?

You may not like gun laws but there isn't anything illegal with carrying them with the proper permit. Following someone to see where they may be going doesn't make it illegal either.

I understand that if Zimmerman didn't come into Martin's life that he would probably still be alive but it's the legality of the situation that I don't see sticking.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #304 on: April 17, 2012, 11:44:10 am »

The legality is that to prove murder, you need intent. The very fact that he had a gun is intent. You don't carry a deadly weapon if your plan is to sell a guy lemonade. -EK
Logged
Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #305 on: April 17, 2012, 11:50:55 am »

^^^ That's not true at all... I don't carry a firearm, but if I did, I'd carry it for self-protection, not to start a gunfight. He might have had absolutely no intent to kill Trayvon, just to hold him up for the cops. No one knows that, but you carry a weapon to protect yourself - at least, that's what I would carry it for.
Logged
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #306 on: April 17, 2012, 12:00:57 pm »

Except for the fact that he was told not once, but twice to cease pursuit and not confront him at all. The fact that Martin is dead is 100% Zimmerman's fault- NO ONE else's. He should be held accountable for that. You don't get to use the "self protection" excuse when YOU were the one who instigated the confrontation by the pursuit. -EK
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #307 on: April 17, 2012, 12:20:24 pm »

The legality is that to prove murder, you need intent. The very fact that he had a gun is intent. You don't carry a deadly weapon if your plan is to sell a guy lemonade. -EK

Are you drunk ?? More people than you could imagine CCW, including me. Does that fact mean that I have "intent" to murder someone ??

Except for the fact that he was told not once, but twice to cease pursuit and not confront him at all. The fact that Martin is dead is 100% Zimmerman's fault- NO ONE else's. He should be held accountable for that. You don't get to use the "self protection" excuse when YOU were the one who instigated the confrontation by the pursuit. -EK

And how do you know that he didn't cease pursuit when he was asked to. People are still making this assumption. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You get to use the "self protection" excuse when you are physically attacked. Following someone doesn't instigate a confrontation. The person who initiated physical contact instigated the confrontation, whoever it was. Martin had more than one option to choose from also......
Logged
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #308 on: April 17, 2012, 12:36:03 pm »

Yeah...he DID have the option to run away from the idiot gun-toating, vigilante wannabe; oh wait- he DID run in the other direction. If you have specifically been told not to follow, but are able to continue giving directions to where a person is, in fact, running away- which the transcripts of the 911 call show, then yes, he did not cease to pursue. That's not an assumption. It's a fact. How else do you suppose the two ended up TOGETHER? Zimmerman admits that Martin is running AWAY from him. The only way they are in the same place is if Zimmerman kept following him.

I personally don't care if you or anyone else carries a concealed weapon. My point is that if you are pursuing someone, and confront them for no reason other than you simply feel like it and disregard what someone has told you to do, the fact that you're carrying a gun speaks to motive. I'm being pretty specific here, so don't twist my words- not everyone who carries has the intent of murdering someone. But absolutely, if you DO shoot someone, after being told to stop following them, it speaks pretty clearly to intent. Don't jump my shit for that- it's one of the things the prosecutors are going to say. It is what it is. Bottom line- Zimmerman doesn't pursue, and Martin lives. Why is that a point of contention? What is wrong with society that we have to constantly remind people that shooting eachother is not allowed?

Edit to add- I guess it doesn't really matter. As this happened in Florida, where murder is apparently not really that big a deal, and you can kill your child and get away with it, I suspect that Zimmerman will get off anyway, inspite of the facts- but not because of them. -EK
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 12:41:40 pm by EKnight » Logged
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 30395

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #309 on: April 17, 2012, 12:48:36 pm »

I think that we need to break this discussion into two parts:

1) Under the current law, did Zimmerman commit justifiable homicide?

and

2) SHOULD Zimmerman be legally protected, based on what happened?

To #1, I think that you can make a case that the law protects Zimmerman.  If you allow someone to carry a weapon, track down suspicious people, start a conflict, and then retaliate in self-defense -- and all of those are protected, then he might walk.

My problem is with #2 -- though I agree that all of those are rights, I don't think that they should be rights in conjunction with one another.  If you are an aggressor and you don't make a reasonable attempt to retreat, I don't think it's RIGHT for you to be justified in escalating violence.  I feel that, at worst, you should only be able to meet force with equal force.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #310 on: April 17, 2012, 12:56:49 pm »

I'll go one further- the issue of "rights" flat irritates me. Why are they "rights?" Who made them "rights?" They're not God-given. God's stance on killing people or using violence seem pretty clear. Love thy neighbor. So who made these rights- especially the ones regarding guns, gun laws, gun safety, etc? A group of white, middle-class, slave-owning, land-holding men, who, in the same breath said, "All men are created equal.... as long as you're not black, or Indian, or a woman, or poor, or uneducated....but everyone is equal." BS. There is no "right" to go around shooting people because you feel they may or may not be a threat to someone indeterminately. The idea of even carrying a concealed weapon isn't a right- it's a priviledge which needs to carry with it a little more accountability when you use said weapon to shoot an unarmed person. -EK
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #311 on: April 17, 2012, 01:04:58 pm »

The legality is that to prove murder, you need intent. The very fact that he had a gun is intent. You don't carry a deadly weapon if your plan is to sell a guy lemonade. -EK

Seriously? You can be anti-gun all you want but the fact of the matter is he possessed and carried the gun legally. There is no proof of intent.
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #312 on: April 17, 2012, 01:05:57 pm »

Except for the fact that he was told not once, but twice to cease pursuit and not confront him at all. The fact that Martin is dead is 100% Zimmerman's fault- NO ONE else's. He should be held accountable for that. You don't get to use the "self protection" excuse when YOU were the one who instigated the confrontation by the pursuit. -EK

It has been upheld in the Florida courts already. As long as Zimmermann did not cause the physical confrontation he did nothing against the law.
Logged
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #313 on: April 17, 2012, 01:10:14 pm »

Then what- exactly- was his intent in pursuing the kid with a loaded gun when he was specifically told not to? Did he really need a gun to "detain" someone 20-30 pounds lighter than himself as he ran away? Seriously? What intent did he have? There better be a good answer for this, because you can bet the prosecuters will ask it. "As long as Zimmerman did not cause the physical confrontation" is the key- I believe he DID. How else do you explain the fact that the two ended up wrestling on the ground when Martin was fleeing to begin with? It's been publically stated that, according to Durell Peaden, one of the sponsors of the Florida Stnad your Ground law, the law does not say that a person has a right to confront another. "When [Zimmerman] said 'I'm following him', he lost his defense." -EK
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 01:19:34 pm by EKnight » Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #314 on: April 17, 2012, 01:21:55 pm »

^^^ Apparently you must not believe me because you keep doubting me. Florida courts have upheld the self defense claim even when the shooter "pursued" a victim. It is not a loss of defense.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines