Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 203

Thread: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

  1. #161
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    even without SYG laws, he was justified in shooting TM.... and I'm not concerned at all that the law allows for one to defend himself from harm or death...I'd be very concerned if it didn't.

    all the events leading up to the confrontation were legal and just... and that goes for both fellows.

    where **** went downhill is when one fellow made the choice to initiate violence without justifiable provocation.

    a simple conversation would have cleared up the concerns of both individuals...but the initiation of violence precluded that from happening , and we are where we are as a result of that choice.
    It went downhill when Zimmerman got out of his car to follow a teenage boy on a hunch.

  2. #162
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Please explain how the so-called stand your ground law got Zimmerman acquitted. Here's the jury instruction that mentions stand your ground:



    Do you even know what the SYG laws mean? How could he have retreated? Slithered out from under Trayvon Martin and run away? How could he have retreated? It is for people like you that the law was written. From your armchair quarterback position, you postulate away on how, once Zimmerman's nose was probably/possibly broken, he was straddled and having his head boinked against the concrete, he had dozens of options besides wrestling for his gun and shooting the attacker.
    With SYG, Zimmerman could shoot him even if Zimmerman started the fight. That made a guilty charge nearly impossible. The rest of your argument is just speculation. I watched the trial, and at no point was it proven that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was beating Zimmerman up with any certainty. He could have done that to himself, for all we know. Not to mention, Martin has no bruising on his fists, which would have come along with punching Z "20-30 times". Where you there? If not, I suggest you abandon that part of your argument. BTW, he could have just stayed in his car, eliminating the need for a "retreat". Personally, I think that in itself warranted a Manslaughter charge.
    Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 09:19 AM.

  3. #163
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Democrat152 View Post
    With SYG, Zimmerman could shoot him even if Zimmerman started the fight. That made a guilty charge nearly impossible. The rest of your argument is just speculation. I watched the trial, and at no point was it proven that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was beating Zimmerman up with any certainty. He could have done that to himself, for all we know. Not to mention, Martin has no bruising on his fists, which would have come along with punching Z "20-30 times". Where you there? If not, I suggest you abandon that part of your argument.
    Did it say that in the jury instructions? No, it did not. Because it isn't necessarily true. SYG does not allow someone to beat the crap out of someone else, pull a gun and shoot them in the head. I don't know where you've gotten your perspective on SYG laws, but they're dead wrong.

    Under SYG laws, if you punch someone in the nose? That does not give you license to shoot them. SYG isn't about retaliation. It's about being in fear of your life. As was Zimmerman. If you choose not to accept what the jury accepted? *shrug* Then I guess you will continue posting nonsensical nonapplicable opinions.

    Thank God our legal system is such that a defendant doesn't have to PROVE it happened the way he said....that it's up to the State to prove that it didn't.

    God bless America.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #164
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Did it say that in the jury instructions? No, it did not. Because it isn't necessarily true. SYG does not allow someone to beat the crap out of someone else, pull a gun and shoot them in the head. I don't know where you've gotten your perspective on SYG laws, but they're dead wrong.

    Under SYG laws, if you punch someone in the nose? That does not give you license to shoot them. SYG isn't about retaliation. It's about being in fear of your life. As was Zimmerman. If you choose not to accept what the jury accepted? *shrug* Then I guess you will continue posting nonsensical nonapplicable opinions.

    Thank God our legal system is such that a defendant doesn't have to PROVE it happened the way he said....that it's up to the State to prove that it didn't.

    God bless America.
    I never said it did. What I SAID was that even if Zimmerman had started to fight, he could have shot Martin when he started losing. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of him being found guilty. The ruling was correct, the law, in my opinion, is not.
    Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 09:32 AM.

  5. #165
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Democrat152 View Post
    I never said it did. What I SAID was that even if Zimmerman had started to fight, he could have shot Martin when he started losing. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of a guilty charge.
    Self-defense statutes without SYG provide for that possibility. If someone punches you in the nose, you do not have the right to shoot them in the head. You always, under any self-defense laws in the United States, have the right to defend yourself against great bodily harm -- no matter who starts the fight.

    Nonetheless, the state failed to prove that George Zimmerman acted in other than self-defense...having absolutely nothing to do with the SYG law

    They failed to prove George Zimmerman started the fight. Game over.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #166
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Self-defense statutes without SYG provide for that possibility. If someone punches you in the nose, you do not have the right to shoot them in the head. You always, under any self-defense laws in the United States, have the right to defend yourself against great bodily harm -- no matter who starts the fight.

    Nonetheless, the state failed to prove that George Zimmerman acted in other than self-defense...having absolutely nothing to do with the SYG law

    They failed to prove George Zimmerman started the fight. Game over.
    Like I said, I think the ruling was correct, given Florida Law ( and the state's poor performance). Look, I live in Kentucky, So I can tell you with full certainty that up here we only consider Self- Defense applicable if you react with equal force. Martin had his skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. Up here, he would have very likely been found guilty. Its SYG that gave Zimmerman the option to shoot an unarmed teenager when he got scared.
    Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 09:47 AM.

  7. #167
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Democrat152 View Post
    Like I said, I think the ruling was correct, given Florida Law ( and the state's poor performance). Look, I live in Kentucky, So I can tell you with full certainty that up here we only consider Self- Defense applicable if you react with equal force. Martin has his skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. Up here, he would have very likely been found guilty. Its SYG that gave Zimmerman the option to shoot an unarmed teenager when he got scared.
    The state could not prove that Zimmerman did anything but meet force with force. They could not prove that Zimmerman acted unreasonably when he thought his life was threatened. He would not have been found guilty in Kentucky...which is ridiculous conjecture in the first place. In fact, barring the political bull**** that went on in this case, I doubt he would have been charged in your state.

    Here's what your state would have to prove:

    KRS 503.060
    Improper use of physical force in self-protection.


    Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:

    (1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or

    (2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or

    (3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:

    (a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or

    (b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
    (1) Doesn't apply.
    (2) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
    (3) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.

    Please note (3)(a). Being the initial aggressor does not preclude a claim of self defense.

    Clear as day. You are wrong.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #168
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Democrat152 View Post
    It went downhill when Zimmerman got out of his car to follow a teenage boy on a hunch.

    which was, and is, still a perfectly legal action...

    both were acting and behaving fine... right up until violence was initiated.

  9. #169
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The state could not prove that Zimmerman did anything but meet force with force. They could not prove that Zimmerman acted unreasonably when he thought his life was threatened. He would not have been found guilty in Kentucky...which is ridiculous conjecture in the first place. In fact, barring the political bull**** that went on in this case, I doubt he would have been charged in your state.

    Here's what your state would have to prove:



    (1) Doesn't apply.
    (2) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
    (3) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.

    Please note (3)(a). Being the initial aggressor does not preclude a claim of self defense.

    Clear as day. You are wrong.

    , your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.

  10. #170
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    which was, and is, still a perfectly legal action...

    both were acting and behaving fine... right up until violence was initiated.
    I think this is a point that a lot of the race baiters are avoiding. They both did nothing illegal until Treyvon attacked the Zim. It's one of those chain of events things that could have been prevented if any one thing didn't happen.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •