Stand Your Ground

[Woodruff]

We are living in the age of feelings. Naturally, it's what comes right after enough minds have been destroyed. "If it feels right, then it's right" "We don't need no stinking details." "HE IS THE BAD GUY!" "tweet his address." "We want his face on dead or alive posters!"

"GET HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They are the lynch mob, but they are justified. Just like all lynch mobs, amirite?

You don't seem to get that you sound a lot like that yourself.

[loutil]

The fact that you are trying so hard to protect Zimmerman is weird Loutil.

I mean, yes most of the "bad stuff" that went down was due to Martin (he was your stereotypical young, disgruntled, drug taking angry youth). But Martin being a bad guy doesnt excuse Zimmerman from being an idiot*.

* I use the word idiot for a specific reason; it is not illegal to be an idiot. As far as the verdict goes I generally have no issue with it as it is by the book according to the law. To me this is an issue of -a- the wrong charge being pressed, and -b- the law being something I personally disagree with; self defense with a lethal weapon is something I oppose (fortunately I dont live in the US so its all fine and dandy ).

Why is it weird that I feel Zimmerman got a bad rap from the media. Why is it weird that I do not find what he did idiotic?
In your fantasy world criminals NEVER kill innocent people or hurt them. That is NOT the world we live in. Why should the criminals be armed but not me? Should I use karate when someone points a gun at me and threatens my life? I would seem idiotic to me to hold the stance that you do not believe in lethal force when defending yourself. As if there is some plague of innocent civilians killing bad guys. Even if there was, why is that bad?

[loutil]

To clarify. I oppose the ownership of very lethal weapons specifically for self defense (such as handguns).

I have no problem with defending yourself or others from harm.

Incidently I dont believe there are any fundamental human rights (though I may have said otherwise in another thread, assume that I have changed my mind). I think human rights are things that, in a just society, we should have access too (running water, being allowed to defend oneself, etc), but they are not things we fundamentally have.

I reread this 3 times because I could not believe what I was reading. How does one defend themselves from harm against a criminal with a knife? A gun? What if they are bigger and stronger. How about under the influence? Maybe you can scare them away with mean words....

[Lootifer]

To clarify. I oppose the ownership of very lethal weapons specifically for self defense (such as handguns).

I have no problem with defending yourself or others from harm.

Incidently I dont believe there are any fundamental human rights (though I may have said otherwise in another thread, assume that I have changed my mind). I think human rights are things that, in a just society, we should have access too (running water, being allowed to defend oneself, etc), but they are not things we fundamentally have.

I reread this 3 times because I could not believe what I was reading. How does one defend themselves from harm against a criminal with a knife? A gun? What if they are bigger and stronger. How about under the influence? Maybe you can scare them away with mean words....

How very sweetly condescending of you. Weren't you complaining elseware about ad hominem attacks? Just because yours is subtle and implicit just mean you are any less at faults

I've said elseware how I suggest situations like the Martin/Zimmerman incident should play out in my view; im not going to repeat it because I aint going to change you and you aint going to change me.

[Lootifer]

The fact that you are trying so hard to protect Zimmerman is weird Loutil.

I mean, yes most of the "bad stuff" that went down was due to Martin (he was your stereotypical young, disgruntled, drug taking angry youth). But Martin being a bad guy doesnt excuse Zimmerman from being an idiot*.

* I use the word idiot for a specific reason; it is not illegal to be an idiot. As far as the verdict goes I generally have no issue with it as it is by the book according to the law. To me this is an issue of -a- the wrong charge being pressed, and -b- the law being something I personally disagree with; self defense with a lethal weapon is something I oppose (fortunately I dont live in the US so its all fine and dandy ).

Why is it weird that I feel Zimmerman got a bad rap from the media. Why is it weird that I do not find what he did idiotic?

Lets ignore your strawman as I am not interested in that debate.

Regarding the underlined: What possible reason did he have to approach Martin at all?

He was advised to not approach the kid (pretty sure theres a rationale behind the dispatch procedure even if its just some call centre answering the phone). He elicted to ignore this advice.

Lets assume that the confrontation situation resulted in the need for Zimmerman to use lethal force in self defense (something I have no real issue with - it is human nature after all). I.E. your stance is correct; martin bad guy, zimmerman good guy. Thats fine.

However that still doesnt make Zimmermans decision that night sensible:

He had two options prior to the confrontation: Follow the dispatcher advice, or ignore it. The reality of the situation is:

- If he had followed the dispatcher advice one deliquient kid would be alive after 8pm that night (no matter how deliquient, I dont for a minute believe lurking around taking drugs, looking dodgy, and casing houses is worthy of a death sentance)
- Since he didnt follow the dispatcher advice the deliquient kid is now dead.

So logically I come to the conclusion that:

- The dispatcher advice was correct. (the only reason you would disagree here is if you think that ignoring the advice led to a better outcome; is that what you believe?)
- He made, in hindsight, a poor decision.

Whenever I make a poor decision I call myself an idiot and try to do better. Do you not do the same?

[Phatscotty]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

There is nothing in that about any duty to avoid conflict to begin with.

Player, what does the part (that I already painstakingly yet quite visibly underlinez) mean?

It certainly isn't a refutation of what PLAYER said.

I will wait for Player....

[apey]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone. I.E i can shoot you for looking at me wrong basically. And i believe a forcible felony = aggravated.

[loutil]

The fact that you are trying so hard to protect Zimmerman is weird Loutil.

I mean, yes most of the "bad stuff" that went down was due to Martin (he was your stereotypical young, disgruntled, drug taking angry youth). But Martin being a bad guy doesnt excuse Zimmerman from being an idiot*.

* I use the word idiot for a specific reason; it is not illegal to be an idiot. As far as the verdict goes I generally have no issue with it as it is by the book according to the law. To me this is an issue of -a- the wrong charge being pressed, and -b- the law being something I personally disagree with; self defense with a lethal weapon is something I oppose (fortunately I dont live in the US so its all fine and dandy ).

Why is it weird that I feel Zimmerman got a bad rap from the media. Why is it weird that I do not find what he did idiotic?

Lets ignore your strawman as I am not interested in that debate.

Regarding the underlined: What possible reason did he have to approach Martin at all?

He was advised to not approach the kid (pretty sure theres a rationale behind the dispatch procedure even if its just some call centre answering the phone). He elicted to ignore this advice.

Lets assume that the confrontation situation resulted in the need for Zimmerman to use lethal force in self defense (something I have no real issue with - it is human nature after all). I.E. your stance is correct; martin bad guy, zimmerman good guy. Thats fine.

However that still doesnt make Zimmermans decision that night sensible:

He had two options prior to the confrontation: Follow the dispatcher advice, or ignore it. The reality of the situation is:

- If he had followed the dispatcher advice one deliquient kid would be alive after 8pm that night (no matter how deliquient, I dont for a minute believe lurking around taking drugs, looking dodgy, and casing houses is worthy of a death sentance)
- Since he didnt follow the dispatcher advice the deliquient kid is now dead.

So logically I come to the conclusion that:

- The dispatcher advice was correct. (the only reason you would disagree here is if you think that ignoring the advice led to a better outcome; is that what you believe?)
- He made, in hindsight, a poor decision.

Whenever I make a poor decision I call myself an idiot and try to do better. Do you not do the same?

I have stated this before but I will repeat it here. The dispatcher did NOT tell him not to follow. The dispatcher said "that is not necessary". Maybe semantical but salient to me. Further, there was history of criminals getting away before the cops could respond on multiple incidents in Zimmerman's neighborhood. While we can agree in hindsight it was not the best choice I certainly do not consider his actions unreasonable.
One other VERY key point. Zimmerman did NOT approach Martin. He only followed him. It was Martin who approached Zimmerman and started a fight. Facts that many of you continue to ignore or pretend did not happen as it does not fit the narrative you continue to try and paint that Zimmerman was an idiot.

[Woodruff]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone.

Based on the case where the man in Florida shot the teenager who was playing his music too loud at the gas station, all you need for "self defense" is to feel threatened because you THINK you saw a weapon (a far different thing). He wasn't attacked, and there wasn't a weapon.

Speaking of which...why wouldn't Martin have been able to claim the Stand Your Ground defense? I mean...if he weren't dead and all. I can see where he might have felt threatened (whether rightly so or not).

I.E i can shoot you for looking at me wrong basically.

I seriously doubt this would hold up in court and IF IT COULD, then the law absolutely needs to be rewritten or removed entirely.

[Phatscotty]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone.

Based on the case where the man in Florida shot the teenager who was playing his music too loud at the gas station, all you need for "self defense" is to feel threatened because you THINK you saw a weapon (a far different thing). He wasn't attacked, and there wasn't a weapon.

Which means he is probably lying, and you should hold him accountable and not a law he is trying to abuse. As I've pointed out, and as you continually ignore, stand your ground did not apply in the Zimmerman case, nor the Florida gas station case.

Facts please. No more lies please. Thanks

[Phatscotty]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone. I.E i can shoot you for looking at me wrong basically. And i believe a forcible felony = aggravated.

That's not the whole story. You don't only need to feel threatened. The story and the evidence have to also add up, as well as a jury needs to agree.

[Woodruff]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone.

Based on the case where the man in Florida shot the teenager who was playing his music too loud at the gas station, all you need for "self defense" is to feel threatened because you THINK you saw a weapon (a far different thing). He wasn't attacked, and there wasn't a weapon.

Which means he is probably lying, and you should hold him accountable and not a law he is trying to abuse. As I've pointed out, and as you continually ignore, stand your ground did not apply in the Zimmerman case, nor the Florida gas station case.

Facts please. No more lies please. Thanks

Speaking of "facts, please", I wasn't talking about Stand Your Ground. Learn how to fucking read if you're going to lecture me about "facts please" and "no more lies please". How about "No more partisan bullshit from Phatscotty, please"? Sometimes, I really wish we were better strangers.

[Phatscotty]

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

No self defense you must have been attacked or seen a weapon. Stand your ground or Castle Laws you just need to feel a threat from someone.

Based on the (stand your ground) case where the man in Florida shot the teenager who was playing his music too loud at the gas station, all you need for "self defense" is to feel threatened because you THINK you saw a weapon (a far different thing). He wasn't attacked, and there wasn't a weapon.

Which means he is probably lying, and you should hold him accountable and not a law he is trying to abuse. As I've pointed out, and as you continually ignore, stand your ground did not apply in the Zimmerman case, nor the Florida gas station case.

Facts please. No more lies please. Thanks

Speaking of "facts, please", I wasn't talking about Stand Your Ground. Learn how to fucking read if you're going to lecture me about "facts please" and "no more lies please". How about "No more partisan bullshit from Phatscotty, please"? Sometimes, I really wish we were better strangers.

k