• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

An interesting and similar stand your ground case in Florida

spanky said:
Huh?
..........
Click to expand...

Being in his car is entirely irrelevant in florida. Do you seriously need to be hand fed with the blatantly obvious?
 
vendur said:
Being in his car is entirely irrelevant in florida. Do you seriously need to be hand fed with the blatantly obvious?
Click to expand...

(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
Click to expand...

Text of Statute for Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

Accusing people of being uninformed or ignorant when you're the one who is uniformed and ignorant is not only bad form but makes you look like a douche.
 
vendur said:
Is your premise that this person's case was dismissed for SYG only on the grounds of supposed "unlawful entry"?
Click to expand...

Oh gawd you are still at it:lol:

That is all you need to dismiss the case:lol:

Not to mention it is a HUGE difference between the two cases. To the point you can't compare them in the way you are trying to do:lol:

Oh wait, they both happened in Florida.:lol:

Quick , to the forums!:lol:
 
vendur said:
Is your premise that this person's case was dismissed for SYG only on the grounds of supposed "unlawful entry"?
Click to expand...

Well, that wasn't the issue, was it.

Here is your statement;

Being in his car is entirely irrelevant in florida.
Click to expand...

I proved you wrong an now you're moving on from being a douche to being a boob.

Admit you were wrong and I'll continue the discussion. If not, I don't have the time.

And FWIW, I came on to this thread to support you.
 
spanky said:
Even O'Mara agrees this is not a SYG issue, but one of self defense.
Click to expand...

M reaching for Z's gun and telling he *Z* was going to die would reasonably put Z in fear of serious bodily or death plus Z was unable to free himself ----That's justification in using deadly force under traditional self defense principles

On SYG...it also applies. Why?

Z was in a public area in his neighborhood. An area, Z lawfully had a right to be

Z was attacked and did nothing to provoke M's physical assault plus Z had NO duty to retreat but Z could not...Z was pinned to the ground

Combine all those elements with Z's reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death and you have your SYG

Both apply
 
spanky said:
Well, that wasn't the issue, was it.

Here is your statement;



I proved you wrong an now you're moving on from being a douche to being a boob.

Admit you were wrong and I'll continue the discussion. If not, I don't have the time.

And FWIW, I came on to this thread to support you.
Click to expand...


I won't admit anything of the sort. I'm trying to gauge your ignorance of reality and how I might dispel it. By simply quoting random words you have failed to substantiate anything other than your copy and paste ability. Congrats on that.
 
vendur said:
I won't admit anything of the sort. I'm trying to gauge your ignorance of reality and how I might dispel it. By simply quoting random words you have failed to substantiate anything other than your copy and paste ability. Congrats on that.
Click to expand...

Watch out! Internet tough guy:thumbs:
 
vendur said:
I won't admit anything of the sort. I'm trying to gauge your ignorance of reality and how I might dispel it. By simply quoting random words you have failed to substantiate anything other than your copy and paste ability. Congrats on that.
Click to expand...

I quoted the wording from the relevant Florida statute...and provided a link.

At least be a man and admit when you're wrong. If not you are just a weenie in a tutu with a keyboard.

A real man admits when he's wrong and moves on to fight another day.
 
Last edited:
spanky said:
I quoted the wording from the relevant Florida statute.

At least be a man and admit when you're wrong. If not you are just a weenie in a tutu with a keyboard.

A real man admits when he's wrong and moves on to fight another day.
Click to expand...


The fact GZ was or was not in his car is entirely irrelevant to satisfying SYG. I've tried to seek some sense in your madness, but it appears there is none.
 
vendur said:
The fact GZ was or was not in his car is entirely irrelevant to satisfying SYG. I've tried to seek some sense in your madness, but it appears there is none.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're officially a boob.
 
hawke812 said:
Okay, so we got following and the shot. Anything else?

This is not enough to compare the two and come to the conclusion the OP did...
Click to expand...

Possibly not the same conclusion as the OP, but...... still wrong. The shooter had no business following the victim. YES, VICTIM. What is wrong with the world today that we not only allow people to take the law into their own hands, but celebrate it?

FL needs to rethink these laws. Fast.
 
spanky said:
Okay, you're officially a boob.
Click to expand...

You are lucky I'm not one of these crybaby "report button" freaks. I truly am a boob for wasting any of my time on planet earth dealing with you.
 
EyesWideOpen said:
Possibly not the same conclusion as the OP, but...... still wrong. The shooter had no business following the victim. YES, VICTIM. What is wrong with the world today that we not only allow people to take the law into their own hands, but celebrate it?

FL needs to rethink these laws. Fast.
Click to expand...

EWO...damn glad to see ya.
 
EyesWideOpen said:
Possibly not the same conclusion as the OP, but...... still wrong. The shooter had no business following the victim. YES, VICTIM. What is wrong with the world today that we not only allow people to take the law into their own hands, but celebrate it?

FL needs to rethink these laws. Fast.
Click to expand...
It is the above stance that if allowed to influence our laws, gets innocent people killed.
The person was not a victim but an aggressor just like Trayvon was.
 
EyesWideOpen said:
Possibly not the same conclusion as the OP, but...... still wrong. The shooter had no business following the victim. YES, VICTIM. What is wrong with the world today that we not only allow people to take the law into their own hands, but celebrate it?

FL needs to rethink these laws. Fast.
Click to expand...

Nope.

SYG actually helps law abiding citizens avoid political persecution by a moronic prosecutor.
 
hawke812 said:
SYG overrides a "duty to retreat".

Even a moron as stupid as myself knows this:lol:
Click to expand...

I should be surprised that you aren't condemning that shooting.
The person shot was unarmed.
The shooter had not been hurt.
He has followed the person.
Stopped.
Could have just driven away.
Or even just not rolled his window down.
He could have just hit the gas much faster than reaching into the glove box to pull out a gun.
There was no claim of a struggle over the gun.
The other person being DUI doesn't justify killing him.

That you DON'T condemn that shooting supports that you will follow any reasoning that fixates singularly on personal hatred of George Zimmerman. I see this shooting is FAR more questionable that GZ.
 
Evidently the police found pepper spray fingerprints on the inside of the shooters window, indicating even after being sprayed he continued attempting to either penetrate the vehicle or assault him.

I think this is what the decision turned on and according to the law the courts treat vehicles the same as homes.

Lesson? Don't get drunk and play "I'm invincible!"
 
joko104 said:
I should be surprised that you aren't condemning that shooting.
The person shot was unarmed.
The shooter had not been hurt.
He has followed the person.
Stopped.
Could have just driven away.
Or even just not rolled his window down.
He could have just hit the gas much faster than reaching into the glove box to pull out a gun.
There was no claim of a struggle over the gun.
The other person being DUI doesn't justify killing him.

That you DON'T condemn that shooting supports that you will follow any reasoning that fixates singularly on personal hatred of George Zimmerman. I see this shooting is FAR more questionable that GZ.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Look, the only people I hate would be serial killers/rapists and maybe pedophiles. People like that. No excuses for what they do. Pretty much any actions of what you may call "evil".

I believe GZ made stupid decisions, that is about it. Far, far from hating him:lol:

if he was my friend or family member, I would shake my head and say you ****ed up. Got to pay the piper dumb ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom