Justice for Zimmerman

Noodleface · Jul 19, 2013

don't break into my ass bro

Gavinmad · Jul 19, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
With the "not in the process of a felony" part it's already better than Florida's.... Heh.

Aggravated assault is a felony.

Vaclav · Jul 19, 2013

Robert Baratheon_sl said:
You're basically thinking of how things work in movies. Look at this exact case...Zimmerman's gun had no effect on his losing the fight and sustaining injuries until he pulled the trigger. If things are bad enough to warrant a gun being drawn I'm assuming that I am near death in that moment. There is no way I consider trying to setup some kind of standoff until I can successfully call the police and keep the gun on the guy at the same time. I got a big phone, brah...can't handle a Galaxy Note 2 (TM), talk to 911 on it, and keep a gun trained on a guy at the same time and still feel out of danger. What if the intruder doesn't just leave when the gun comes out? Too many possibilities, most of them with unhappy endings.

Gavinrad_sl said:
Aggravated assault is a felony.

You both need to keep up with the tangents - I wasn't talking about the Z trial in either quote.... there's a complete tangent going on here about Castle Doctrine and SYG in general. (Which FYI the former wouldn't have applied in this case at all - not even remotely - except for KY's apparently weird version that hodj was mentioning - SYG at least was a loose fit initially from bad reporting, CD never fit)

Robert Baratheon_sl · Jul 19, 2013

Well, Zimmerman or not the strategy of "pull gun on intruder with totally unknown intentions and/or weapons and hope it scares him" is not a credible strategy. This shit will never ever happen to 99.9% of us, I'm sure (but isn't discussing it fun?)...but if I had a 15 year old daughter in a bedroom near me, for example, I'm not treating an intruder to a harmless standoff in some kind of gamble that gives him the benefit of the doubt that he's just there to steal my shit. Want the benefit of the doubt? Don't break into houses.

azeth · Jul 19, 2013

Rule of thumb regarding shooting burglars, even in states without castle laws is:

If an unarmed intruder breaks into your home, you shoot them until they die - if your weapon is out you should be firing

"yes officer my gun was locked up"
"officer he motioned toward me and grabbed for something in his pants"

W4RH34D_sl · Jul 19, 2013

Azeth_sl said:
"officer he motioned toward me and grabbed for something in his pants"

Lithose · Jul 19, 2013

Borzak_sl said:
I bet there are lots of other students who went to the same exact schools she has gone to that speak english very well and don't speak ebonics. I'm also going to say that probably most of the white students that she went to school with don't speak like her.

I have people who went to the same school I did who work for me in the shop that can't sign their own name and have a wife/girlfriend pick up their check and sign for it.

Meh, I don't really want to get into an anecdotal argument, but "our education system" was meant to be broader than just schools. I regard education as broad social system, so everything from home life, to school (I admit I wasn't clear). The point is, there is a massive problem among the black population. I don't believe it's because they are black, and I think people who write it off as "because they are black" prevent us from looking deeper into the complexity of the problems faced.

On the SAME token, I don't believe black people should take the position that they fail "because everyone has problems with blacks"--that obfuscates the real problems just as much as the assumption that problems are inherent. It pushes black culture, especially for the younger generations, to not analyze their own problems due to a cultural apathy. Every time someone like Jeantel isnottold "you made us look bad, and it's NOT okay for you to look that dumb" and instead is applauded for it, it increases the cultural divide between the community at large and the black community (Which, no matter how you look at it, won't end well for the smaller community--IE black communities). An example would be when she was being interviews and said "Zimmerman should have taken his ass woopin. They called it a beating but dat was an ass woopin." and this comment was thought of as funny, on national TV..Unbelievable.

Black people need elders more like Bill Cosby, and Martin Luther King, who are willing to say "No, it's NOT okay for you to assume the problem isallexternal". But those leaders/elders are increasingly marginalized by this "uncle tom" status, and the chorus of people doing it are profiteering dirt bags like Sharpton, and people who wrote the article linked in this page. Until black people can come together and say Jeantel's behavior, demeanor, speech (Ect)ISa problem, then the path to finding out what we can ALL do to solve it is severely hindered--because white people who comment on it will be "racists" and black people who comment on it will either support it, or be a patsy for racist whites.

Like most problems, the first step to finding a solution is admitting there is a problem to start with.

azeth · Jul 19, 2013

Also my wife can plink dimes with her M&P 9 at 50 yards. SHAZAM

Gavinmad · Jul 19, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
You both need to keep up with the tangents - I wasn't talking about the Z trial in either quote.... there's a complete tangent going on here about Castle Doctrine and SYG in general. (Which FYI the former wouldn't have applied in this case at all - not even remotely - except for KY's apparently weird version that hodj was mentioning - SYG at least was a loose fit initially from bad reporting, CD never fit)

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.?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:
(1) 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.?s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.?
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person?s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person?s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) ?Dwelling? means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) ?Residence? means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) ?Vehicle? means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.?s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Fedor · Jul 19, 2013

this is how people are treating rachel jeantel

azeth · Jul 19, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity;

hmm if i'm smoking non-prescribed weed and kill an intruder.. i might be boned.

Lleauaric · Jul 19, 2013

I think the laws in non SYG or castle states are designed with the basic tenet that Property < Life. For example, the way I understand it, if someone breaks into your home, and you have kids, ect, and no way to safely make sure they are ok, then blast away. BUt I think the idea was they dont want a guy coming home seeing his house being robbed, then going in and killing the people in it.

Whats that case where the farmer set up the shotgun to be fired when someone opened a window?

Basically, Ive always understood the law to be your rights end when you encroach on another persons. However, some rights are more important other, with the right to life being universal and the highest. So, a guy waving a gun in public gives up his right to life by infringing on another persons, therefore, the cops can kill him. A guy robbing a department store at night, unarmed, still has a right to live because he isnt violating anyone elses right to life.

I personally believe syg is wrong because it doesnt ask people to try to avoid trouble if possible. In my mind lethal force should be exercised only when there are no other options and your safety is at risk. Yes, Trayvonn gave up his right to life when he attacked Zimmerman. But the President asked a good question, would Trayvonn have been justified in shooting GZ if he was armed?

Vaclav · Jul 19, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-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:
(1) 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.-s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

And in the comment you were responding to it was in response to SYG applying in cases like a drug dealer shootout was my personal context. Which is in commission of a felony, which does invalidate the part that references it - since it's BEEN APPLIED TO PROTECT THOSE IN COMMISION OF A FELONY IN FLORIDA regardless of how the law is actually worded that's how it's been applied. (I'm too lazy to look up the phrasing)

Gavinmad · Jul 19, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
And in the comment you were responding to it was in response to SYG applying in cases like a drug dealer shootout was my personal context. Which is in commission of a felony, which does invalidate the part that references it - since it's BEEN APPLIED TO PROTECT THOSE IN COMMISION OF A FELONY IN FLORIDA regardless of how the law is actually worded that's how it's been applied. (I'm too lazy to look up the phrasing)

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1)does not apply if:
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activityor is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity

Don't blame the law, blame incompetent judges.

Vaclav · Jul 19, 2013

Azeth_sl said:
Rule of thumb regarding shooting burglars, even in states without castle laws is:

If an unarmed intruder breaks into your home, you shoot them until they die - if your weapon is out you should be firing

"yes officer my gun was locked up"
"officer he motioned toward me and grabbed for something in his pants"

Funny because that's absolutely not how the law works here - in the aftermath of the JHU issue they explicitly suggested provoking them to leave with a brandished weapon and not using it unless they presented aggression. I can't speak for the other dozen+ non-CD states, but they've actually got police commissioners giving my suggestion here. (Or did ~2 years ago when it occurred)

[And specifically on the "juggling a phone" thing - their suggestion was to call and report first - then to provoke afterwards no juggling in their theorem]

Vaclav · Jul 19, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
Don't blame the law, blame incompetent judges.

Flawed in how it's applied or flawed in who it's written, the end result is the same. And IIRC the "defender" was the one who shot the girl in that case, and was minding his own business until he was shot at - doing some drug dealing which was split from the case. So under that, with a split judging (which doesn't seem that rare from what I've seen of our legal system) it's apparently not that hard for it to occur. (Plus it may have been a misdemeanor level of drugs which would've forced the split by default, no?)

Gavinmad · Jul 19, 2013

There's nothing wrong with the law as written. It flat out says that self-defense does not apply to people engaged in unlawful activity. Blame the legal system for not enforcing the law properly.

Lleauaric · Jul 19, 2013

Id be interested to know what police departments think of SYG laws. My instinct tells me they would be pure chaos for high population areas.

Shit, I think this law alone could fill another 4 seasons of CSI with plot ideas.

original application of SYG?

"Its coming right for us!"

Gavinmad · Jul 19, 2013

Lleauaric_sl said:
Id be interested to know what police departments think of SYG laws. My instinct tells me they would be pure chaos for high population areas.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are all Stand Your Ground states, meaning you have no duty to retreat regardless of where you're attacked.

The top 10 American cities ranked by per capita murders in 2012, in descending order (Flint is #1)

Flint, Michigan - SYG
Detroit, Michigan - SYG
New Orleans, Louisiana - SYG
St. Louis, Missouri - No SYG
Baltimore, Maryland - No SYG
Birmingham, Alabama - SYG
Newark, New Jersey - No SYG
Oakland, California - SYG
Baton Rouge, Louisiana - SYG
Cleveland, Ohio - No SYG
Memphis, Tennessee - SYG

6 SYG vs 4 non SYG doesn't seem like pure chaos. Also, considering that two states made it on the list twice, and given what we know of Flint and Detroit, it seems pretty clear that socio-economic reasons have a lot more to do with the murder rate than self defense laws.

fanaskin · Jul 19, 2013

Lleauaric_sl said:
I think the laws in non SYG or castle states are designed with the basic tenet that Property < Life. For example, the way I understand it, if someone breaks into your home, and you have kids, ect, and no way to safely make sure they are ok, then blast away. BUt I think the idea was they dont want a guy coming home seeing his house being robbed, then going in and killing the people in it.

Whats that case where the farmer set up the shotgun to be fired when someone opened a window?

Basically, Ive always understood the law to be your rights end when you encroach on another persons. However, some rights are more important other, with the right to life being universal and the highest. So, a guy waving a gun in public gives up his right to life by infringing on another persons, therefore, the cops can kill him. A guy robbing a department store at night, unarmed, still has a right to live because he isnt violating anyone elses right to life.

I personally believe syg is wrong because it doesnt ask people to try to avoid trouble if possible. In my mind lethal force should be exercised only when there are no other options and your safety is at risk. Yes, Trayvonn gave up his right to life when he attacked Zimmerman. But the President asked a good question, would Trayvonn have been justified in shooting GZ if he was armed?

so if someone steals your livelyhood and ruins you thats ok because property < life?

there's a million things that increase your risk of dying, crossing the street increases your risk of dying, smoking cigerrettes increases your risk of dying. You can't place an infinite value on human life, it sounds greats but it breaks logic the same way infinities break physics

Search

Justice for Zimmerman

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Robert Baratheon_sl

shitlord

azeth

W4RH34D_sl

shitlord

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

azeth

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole

Fedor

azeth

Lleauaric

Sparkletot Monger

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole

Lleauaric

Sparkletot Monger

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole

fanaskin

Well known agitator