Zimmerman verdict - Page 60 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Air&Road · #**886** 07-23-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

One thing I have learned from this discussion is that the duty to retreat is not nearly as universal as I thought. I still think it's the best rule, but stand-your-ground is not quite the radical change than I thought it was.

Yes, honestly I don't think I ever heard the SYG term before this circus. It is a bit ambiguous.

Fact remains though, in spite of our President who graduated from Harvard Law implying to the contrary, SYG had NOTHING to do with the Z court case.

Air&Road · #**887** 07-23-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

x2

Problem is that you are now agreeing with Pauls "followed A PERSON around" as opposed to YOUR description of "following people around" as if Z made a habit of it.

Even in Pauls "follow a person," Z did not "follow M around." He followed him one time. He was an idiot for doing it, but let's not stretch the truth, okay?

"Stick to the facts, Maam."

P.C. · #**888** 07-23-2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Problem is that you are now agreeing with Pauls "followed A PERSON around" as opposed to YOUR description of "following people around" as if Z made a habit of it.

Even in Pauls "follow a person," Z did not "follow M around." He followed him one time. He was an idiot for doing it, but let's not stretch the truth, okay?

"Stick to the facts, Maam."

"Ma'am" BTW.

Are you of the opinion that Zimmerman's behavior that evening (regarding following someone through the neighborhood) represented an anomaly?

Honus · #**889** 07-23-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

So in a place where crimes have been committed by perp's who's description is unchanging the person who the local community entrusts to assist the LEO in the form of a NBH watch is stalking someone who matches that description when they see them?

If someone who fit a description consistently broke into your house, your neighbors house and many other of your neighbors houses appeared to be cutting thru houses around yours and the nieghbor hood watch followed and reported them ... that is uncivilized? What should a person who walks around in their own neighborhood where B&E's regularly take place be allowed to be armed with according to you? A butterknife?

If he chooses to arm himself, then a gun seems like a good choice. Zimmerman's gun only became a problem when he chose to go off hunting the suspect. He should have reported the suspect and waited for law enforcement to do its job.

Quote:

Get real; all the world is not like where you live.

So, unless I advocate that neighborhood watchmen should arm themselves and then go hunting for suspects in the neighborhood, then I am not being real? Well, I hate to break it to you, but I have a lot of company out here in fantasy land. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Zimmerman acted appropriately, though it seems close to 50-50 as to whether Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. I think he went way outside the bounds of civilized society and that he probably committed no crimes.

Honus · #**890** 07-23-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Problem is that you are now agreeing with Pauls "followed A PERSON around" as opposed to YOUR description of "following people around" as if Z made a habit of it.

Even in Pauls "follow a person," Z did not "follow M around." He followed him one time. He was an idiot for doing it, but let's not stretch the truth, okay?

"Stick to the facts, Maam."

Fair enough.

Air&Road · #**891** 07-23-2013, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

"Ma'am" BTW.

Are you of the opinion that Zimmerman's behavior that evening (regarding following someone through the neighborhood) represented an anomaly?

I have seen no evidence or even an indication that he followed on a regular basis. Of course, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Where is your evidence?

MTUpower · #**892** 07-23-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

One thing I have learned from this discussion is that the duty to retreat is not nearly as universal as I thought. I still think it's the best rule, but stand-your-ground is not quite the radical change than I thought it was. I would be interested in seeing the history of the self-defense rule to see how often over the centuries the law has imposed a duty to retreat.

Quite I rational response and I appreciate that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If he chooses to arm himself, then a gun seems like a good choice. Zimmerman's gun only became a problem when he chose to go off hunting the suspect. He should have reported the suspect and waited for law enforcement to do its job.

Now I dialed 911 a long time ago
Don't you see how late they're reactin'
They only come and they come when they wanna
So get the morgue embalm the goner
They don't care 'cause they stay paid anyway

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

So, unless I advocate that neighborhood watchmen should arm themselves and then go hunting for suspects in the neighborhood, then I am not being real? Well, I hate to break it to you, but I have a lot of company out here in fantasy land. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Zimmerman acted appropriately, though it seems close to 50-50 as to whether Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. I think he went way outside the bounds of civilized society and that he probably committed no crimes.

I don't believe the police will really come as soon as you think they will. Most people live in a world where 911 will not stop a crime in time. When that happens over and over and over what would a reasonable person do when they see what genuinely appears to be one of the same people who have committed past crimes- let them continue on their way and that's that? GZ was not proven to get out of his car to follow TM- he said he got out of his car to find the nearest street address and was ambushed. We don't know if that was exactly how it went- but if that is true then I and most reasonable people would say he acted responsibly and appropriately.

cmac2012 · #**893** 07-23-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neumann

.. . where others run in fear,

I don't think that's what is meant by 'duty to retreat.'

P.C. · #**894** 07-23-2013, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I don't think that's what is meant by 'duty to retreat.'

But it plays into the mindset that wants to glorify the notion of using a legal excuse to gratuitously blow someone's head off.

Txjake · #**895** 07-23-2013, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

"Ma'am" BTW.

Are you of the opinion that Zimmerman's behavior that evening (regarding following someone through the neighborhood) represented an anomaly?

do you have substantiated proof otherwise?

davidmash · #**896** 07-23-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neumann

Nice find, a blog about state laws....laced with a bit of opinion, quite a solid reference

My bad, I must have it all wrong when you stated..

"Pretty sure that is not what I said.
Everyone has the the right to defend ones self. In public if you have the option to retreat to avoid the confrontation then by law you are obligated to. The duty to retreat does not apply to ones castle (home)."

specifically the part.."In public if you have the option to retreat to avoid the confrontation then by law you are obligated to." Did you really mean to say, "we'll only in states that legal statute applies to..?" Or did you intend to make that vast generalization and see what crud sticks to the wall after you fling in?

19 states plus DC fall into the duty to retreat category, hmmm

"The substantial majority view among the states, by a 31-19 margin, is no duty to retreat. Florida is thus part of this substantial majority on this point. And most of these states took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes, including the Florida statute."

great work there Professor DM

. I know it was a quick reply and all but is that really substantial enough for you as research and dissemination? would you accept that info source from a rebutting poster?

Then find your own info.

davidmash · #**897** 07-23-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Yes they do. If you can not qualify under what you just posted, you must legally retreat.

776.013. FL has no duty to retreat.

MTI · #**898** 07-23-2013, 01:09 PM

WTG Top 20!

cmbdiesel 85
P.C. 83
Botnst 80
t walgamuth 54
Txjake 52
MTUpower 50
davidmash 50
cmac2012 50
Air&Road 46
Dudesky 41
Diesel911 26
MS Fowler 24
Dubyagee 24
Honus 21
Jorn 19
neumann 18
chilcutt 17
Skid Row Joe 16
spdrun 16
ruchase 14

neumann · #**899** 07-23-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

But it plays into the mindset that wants to glorify the notion of using a legal excuse to gratuitously blow someone's head off.

What glorified notion are you referring to? Someone who wishes to glorifyingly blow off someone's head needs their head examined.

Is that how you feel deeeeep down inside. You secretly want to act out and blow off someone's head and presenting your holier than art liberal front to distract us from what you really mean to say?

Are those statements incredulous, far reaching and presumptuous? Yes, but its along the same tack that you are presenting your statements...eat the cake and enjoy

neumann · #**900** 07-23-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Then find your own info.

sorry I asked. I thought it would provide an opportunity for you to provide factual content for a change. Lets get back to the status quo and resume the side show.