Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Bob, Bob, Bob - you are starting to sound like you are saying that a culture in which every issue, boo-boo, problem and offense needs to be addressed by a lawsuit and a politician vowing to never let this happen again might result in a plethora of laws and/or fine print trying to navigate those waters and sometimes the outcome is hard to comprehend.

Huh? Did you read what I wrote? That's not at all what I wrote.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

In my opinion SYG laws have gone to far, but at least part of the reasoning behind them is to protect people who legitimately use deadly force to protect themselves.

Reasoning is good. Problem is they do not work.

They have two inherent flaws 1) they encourage escation to murder - the first to cause fatal damage in any dispute wins...and they lead anyone to the belief that they can commit murder and not be prosecuted 2) they can stop justice from being used - SYG gives so much leeway that it can make reasonable doubt a forgone conclusion...and in some cases, known murders can't even be entered into the justice process as SYG stops authorities in their tracks. Then add in...conceal/carry, guns in bars, assault weapons and easy access to guns (ask the Mexican cartels where they get theirs).

Its almost like society has been caught up on debt, crisis, recession...and while nobody was looking somebody just put all these detrimental laws on the books.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Reasoning is good. Problem is they do not work.

They have two inherent flaws 1) they encourage escation to murder - the first to cause fatal damage in any dispute wins...and they lead anyone to the belief that they can commit murder and not be prosecuted 2) they can stop justice from being used - SYG gives so much leeway that it can make reasonable doubt a forgone conclusion...and in some cases, known murders can't even be entered into the justice process as SYG stops authorities in their tracks. Then add in...conceal/carry, guns in bars, assault weapons and easy access to guns (ask the Mexican cartels where they get theirs).

Its almost like society has been caught up on debt, crisis, recession...and while nobody was looking somebody just put all these detrimental laws on the books.

If it's a confrontation between two people without other witnesses, you have the same problem with or without SYG. The one who was killed can't speak, so you only hear from the one still alive to tell their side of the story. Those sort of cases or even he said/she said rape cases and such are always so hard, absent outside witnesses or obvious evidence that tips things one way or another. Even without SYG in Florida, there's a whole lot of uncertainty as to what went on and who is to blame for what. A balanced SYG law would provide reasonable assurances that a person could defend themself if they've exhausted reasonable alternatives. Basically you seem to be asking that there not be uncertainties in court cases, an unrealistic expectation that is a problem regardless of SYG.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

If you have a weapon and the life of a loved one is in danger and you don't use your weapon because there's no SYG law, then I'm really glad I'm not your loved one.

The law has nothing to do with self-defense. It's a political wedge deliberately used to provoke an emotional response.

I think I agree. You are always permitted to defend yourelf or your family. And always have been. When I was a kid, there was a case involving a young Chicago suburban judge who, while on vacation with his family, walked in to the motel room occupied by his two very young daughters and found a guy who had just killed and raped the girls. Instead of beating the guy to death, the judge over powered him and called the cops. An enormous exercise of will power. Point is, with the bodies of those two little girls in the room, who was going to bring charges against the judge if he'd killed the guy?

One of our colleagues has posted endlessly about the blood bath he thinks SYG has caused/is causing/and will cause. He offers one or two annecdotes and no other data to support his conerns (which seem to be amplified exponentially by the racial makeup of the principals in Florida). If Trayvon Martin had been white, or George Zimmerman black, I doubt his t*ts would be in an uproar.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I think I agree. You are always permitted to defend yourelf or your family. And always have been. When I was a kid, there was a case involving a young Chicago suburban judge who, while on vacation with his family, walked in to the motel room occupied by his two very young daughters and found a guy who had just killed and raped the girls. Instead of beating the guy to death, the judge over powered him and called the cops. An enormous exercise of will power. Point is, with the bodies of those two little girls in the room, who was going to bring charges against the judge if he'd killed the guy?

One of our colleagues has posted endlessly about the blood bath he thinks SYG has caused/is causing/and will cause. He offers one or two annecdotes and no other data to support his conerns (which seem to be amplified exponentially by the racial makeup of the principals in Florida). If Trayvon Martin had been white, or George Zimmerman black, I doubt his t*ts would be in an uproar.

In my opinion SYG laws have gone to far, but at least part of the reasoning behind them is to protect people who legitimately use deadly force to protect themselves. I've read about cases over the years where a criminal would break into someone's home or business and end up suing the people or business, even though they were criminally entering, and winning at times. There should be a reasonable middle ground where you give people assurance that they can reasonably protect themselves and their loved ones, but not allow aggression when it's not necessary. This is where the Florida law is flawed to me. It should require a person to take reasonable steps to avoid a confrontation, but if a confrontation can't be avoided, then you're ok to defend yourself. Seems like common sense to me.

While your posts may not be 100% in sync, I agree.

 

[duper]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I would opine that SYG is bad until your own life or the life of a loved one is in danger. Then its the most wonderful thing in the world since sliced bread.

Why? There are already self-defense laws.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

It almost sounds like we are on the verge of an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent!


Someone wants to murder someone else and get away with it, so he somehow entices the person to enter his home late at night and then kills him upon entry, "mistaking" the person for an intruder.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

It almost sounds like we are on the verge of an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent!


Someone wants to murder someone else and get away with it, so he somehow entices the person to enter his home late at night and then kills him upon entry, "mistaking" the person for an intruder.

None of this is really very new. If you inventive enough-you pretty much can get away with a lot of crimes. Happens every day in all walks of life and at all levels of society.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

If it's a confrontation between two people without other witnesses, you have the same problem with or without SYG. The one who was killed can't speak, so you only hear from the one still alive to tell their side of the story. Those sort of cases or even he said/she said rape cases and such are always so hard, absent outside witnesses or obvious evidence that tips things one way or another. Even without SYG in Florida, there's a whole lot of uncertainty as to what went on and who is to blame for what. A balanced SYG law would provide reasonable assurances that a person could defend themself if they've exhausted reasonable alternatives. Basically you seem to be asking that there not be uncertainties in court cases, an unrealistic expectation that is a problem regardless of SYG.

At least a SYG supporter with something to say. In the case of your confrontation with no witnesses...one guy kills the other. Perhaps there is no evidence of guilt...well then there's no court case under any circumstances.

But they could find the gun, the finger prints, the footprints, and its open-and-shut guilty. With SYG, this air tight evidence could well be secondary to what the shooter decides to say and even though its open-and-shut, he goes free. Without SYG, the shooter is pretty much caught for the crime they committed where the evidence carries weight over the claims of the guy who's trying to protect his own skin. So no, I don't see your point.

Also there is a belief in this country that legal punishment is a deterent to crime (which I agree with)...even when there are no witnesses. Lastly, more of the cases we have been discussing have had witnesses than not.

One of our colleagues has posted endlessly about the blood bath he thinks SYG has caused/is causing/and will cause. He offers one or two annecdotes and no other data to support his conerns (which seem to be amplified exponentially by the racial makeup of the principals in Florida). If Trayvon Martin had been white, or George Zimmerman black, I doubt his t*ts would be in an uproar.

Nothing annecdotal about these cases...better stop the meds.

Adkins: A mentally disabled man, Daniel Adkins Jr., had walked in front of Mr. Jude’s car, forcing him to stop. Words were exchanged. However, Mr. Jude pulled a .40-caliber handgun out and fatally shot Mr. Adkins. Legal action has not been taken.

Rodriguez: In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said "I'm standing my ground here," and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded.

So I'm the one guy here who advocates locking up and throwing away the key for Adkin's killer a BLACK guy and Raul Rodreguez yes a HISPANIC...who are getting off with SYG. And that's because I'm racist against whites?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

annecdotal

Better look that one up, 5mM.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Better look that one up, 5mM.

So where is Bob at anyways?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

At least a SYG supporter with something to say. In the case of your confrontation with no witnesses...one guy kills the other. Perhaps there is no evidence of guilt...well then there's no court case under any circumstances.

But they could find the gun, the finger prints, the footprints, and its open-and-shut guilty. With SYG, this air tight evidence could well be secondary to what the shooter decides to say and even though its open-and-shut, he goes free. Without SYG, the shooter is pretty much caught for the crime they committed where the evidence carries weight over the claims of the guy who's trying to protect his own skin. So no, I don't see your point.

Also there is a belief in this country that legal punishment is a deterent to crime (which I agree with)...even when there are no witnesses. Lastly, more of the cases we have been discussing have had witnesses than not.



Nothing annecdotal about these cases...better stop the meds.

Adkins: A mentally disabled man, Daniel Adkins Jr., had walked in front of Mr. Jude’s car, forcing him to stop. Words were exchanged. However, Mr. Jude pulled a .40-caliber handgun out and fatally shot Mr. Adkins. Legal action has not been taken.

Rodriguez: In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said "I'm standing my ground here," and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded.

So I'm the one guy here who advocates locking up and throwing away the key for Adkin's killer a BLACK guy and Raul Rodreguez yes a HISPANIC...who are getting off with SYG. And that's because I'm racist against whites?

By Rodriguez "getting off" you mean "convicted of murder", right?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

At least a SYG supporter with something to say. In the case of your confrontation with no witnesses...one guy kills the other. Perhaps there is no evidence of guilt...well then there's no court case under any circumstances.

But they could find the gun, the finger prints, the footprints, and its open-and-shut guilty. With SYG, this air tight evidence could well be secondary to what the shooter decides to say and even though its open-and-shut, he goes free. Without SYG, the shooter is pretty much caught for the crime they committed where the evidence carries weight over the claims of the guy who's trying to protect his own skin. So no, I don't see your point.

Also there is a belief in this country that legal punishment is a deterent to crime (which I agree with)...even when there are no witnesses. Lastly, more of the cases we have been discussing have had witnesses than not.



Nothing annecdotal about these cases...better stop the meds.

Adkins: A mentally disabled man, Daniel Adkins Jr., had walked in front of Mr. Jude’s car, forcing him to stop. Words were exchanged. However, Mr. Jude pulled a .40-caliber handgun out and fatally shot Mr. Adkins. Legal action has not been taken.

Rodriguez: In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said "I'm standing my ground here," and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded.

So I'm the one guy here who advocates locking up and throwing away the key for Adkin's killer a BLACK guy and Raul Rodreguez yes a HISPANIC...who are getting off with SYG. And that's because I'm racist against whites?

Mommee, Annecdote Man is back. So the defense against suggestions that your position is essentially a series of annecdotes, is to submit MORE annecdotes. I suppose I just missed all of your monomaniacal posts on SYG before the Martin shooting, eh? What was it Nicholson said: "Go sell crazy somewhere else."

What is it with you libs anyway that you refuse to source your quotes?

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

By Rodriguez "getting off" you mean "convicted of murder", right?

Forget it, he's rolling...

 

[bronconick]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Forget it, he's rolling...

When looking up to make sure it was the same guy, it sounds like it was your typical dumb criminal move. The guy video records the thing, instigates the confrontation and then suddenly starts saying "they're gonna kill me, I'm standing my ground." and fires away. I think he got his idea on how the law worked from watching the South Park episode where the hunters are yelling "It's coming right at us!" while the deer is staring at them confused from 100 yards away.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Mommee, Annecdote Man is back. So the defense against suggestions that your position is essentially a series of annecdotes, is to submit MORE annecdotes. I suppose I just missed all of your monomaniacal posts on SYG before the Martin shooting, eh? What was it Nicholson said: "Go sell crazy somewhere else."

What is it with you libs anyway that you refuse to source your quotes?

I hadn't heard of SYG before Martin. Your point?

When faced with logic, evidence and examples...you haven't said what about these 'annecdotes' is not true, why its not true, how its not true...and provided anything to back it up. Until you post something other than saying 'you're wrong'...you pretty much got nothin.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I hadn't heard of SYG before Martin. Your point?

When faced with logic, evidence and examples...you haven't said what about these 'annecdotes' is not true, why its not true, how its not true...and provided anything to back it up. Until you post something other than saying 'you're wrong'...you pretty much got nothin.

Since you habitually fail to source your "quotes" and since I'm not a mind reader, it's not easy to rebut your annecdotes. But I'll start here: sample size. It's a bit ironic that the guy who relies entirely on out of context annecdotes to make his argument expects me to provide "proof" that these annecdotes fail to make his point.

And you make my point about SYG. You had never heard of it 'til this case. Now you're some sort of authority. I'm wondering what is it about this case that caused POTUS to jump in, every race pimp in the western hemisphere to get involved and the MSM to forego any pretense of objectivity? None of the above would have uttered a word about the case except for the handy racist narrative about an out of control "white Hispanic" gunning down an innocent black child who was only getting some "skillets" from the 7/11. And that's why you're now preaching about the evils of SYG on street corners. Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

This whole exchange is bordering on preposterously comical.

 

[duper]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

This whole exchange is bordering on preposterously comical.

No no. It's way across the border.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

No no. It's way across the border.

You may be right...