Existing cases suggest this is incorrect. In a Texas case, a guy leaves his house armed with a gun to confront a noisy party several doors down. He calls 911 and documents the confrontation with a cell phone video:
He specifically quotes the wording in the stand your ground law, and is careful to establish that he perceives a threat to his life. I don’t see how this could have happened in the absence of a SYG law.
This should never happen in response to a noisy party. It is vigilantism under the cover of SYG.
A quick read of that article suggests he went to the party and threatened people with his gun, which would not be covered by SYG. It also says that the dead man went back into the house to fetch a weapon, and threatened Rodriguez with it, which would also not be covered by SYG (or at least not the Florida version, I’ve not read the Texas version).
This looks, from that one article, like a situation where people have heard of the law but don’t know what it actually covers. Unless the law is so complex that people couldn’t be reasonably expected to understand it, this isn’t a strong argument against the law.
But it does poke a big hole in your claim that SYG laws don’t encourage lawlessness. 'This guy thought he was legally entitled to provoke a confrontation, and shoot anybody who threatened him. That is why SYG laws are dangerous, because they are easily misunderstood by would-be vigilantes who would otherwise be unlikely to go up against a group of drunks. SYG laws encourage vigilantism, even when it is not protected by the law.
It is illegal to attack someone no matter how much they goad you, and this is a good thing. One always has the right to defend against someone who attacks you as a result of “goading”, SYG laws or not.
“Murder someone legally” is an oxymoron. If it’s legal, it cannot be murder.
I’m also not aware that Zimmerman practiced law at any point.
So, to the (minimal) extent that your post is coherent, it’s false.
Straw man. No one is saying it is legal to attack someone who goads you. Without SYG, you have a duty to withdraw, so if you go out of your way to confront someone, then you don’t leave when it starts going sideways, you cannot claim self defense. The defendant in the Texas case specifically referenced his right to stand his ground.
Yeah, this is ridiculous. I can’t believe they actually arrested Mr. Wang. That shows that the British have gone too far in trying to protect home invaders.
Shall I put on some Chubby Checkers so you can really twist my words? I realize you are doing it so you can just attack me personally rather than address the issue head on… but that’s OK.
[sup]pats Steophan’s head and sends him on his way[/sup]
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised and disappointed that the OP is getting away with this shit and hasn’t bee reamed a new one here in the Pit. So, because Bricker (and everyone else on the other side of this DEBATE) don’t agree with the OP about Zimmerman that makes them (and Bricker specifically) racist or bigots? Really? And the idiotic OP is getting away with this with only a few half hearted rebukes?
I mean, I know Bricker isn’t the most popular poster among some 'dopers, but is anyone other than the moron who wrote this cluster fuck really believing that anything Bricker has said or done either in the various Zimmerman train wrecks or anywhere else a racist or bigot?? Seriously? Is this where things have devolved to? Don’t agree with someone politically so call them a bigot or racist? And while I can understand it coming from someone such as the OP who obviously has the intelligence of pocket lint, the fact that s/he hasn’t been blasted viciously by this point in the thread for something so obviously ridiculous as this is, well…fucking Pit worthy in itself. What…the…fuck??
Consider me a prime suspect, Sherlock. One of my favorite activities on a lazy Sunday, is to drive to a nice neighborhood I don’t know well, and walk around looking at houses. I both, get exercise and enjoy my walk. Shit! I’ve even struck a nice conversation or two with a number of the house owners. Of course, I am both, old & white.
It wasn’t? Kid was staying at his father’s house. Had every right to be walking around there for all to see. IOW, in public. :rolleyes:
Sure. 'cept chasing after someone with a gun, after you’ve reported the “suspicious behavior” is vigilantism at its worst.
Right. I am calling the cops ever time I see a black kid walking down my street. Oh wait! I live in a country that is 90% black or shades of. :rolleyes:
Did I tell you you are a racist douchebag? No? Well, you are.
I don’t necessarily agree with the charge of Bricker’s alleged racism, but it isn’t the first time he places “the law” above common sense.
In closing, I do agree with the OP that there are in fact many a closet racist on the SDMB – this whole Trayvon mess, back to you with the face original IMHO thread has exposed a whole lot of them.
If you were walking in a private neighbourhood, where there had been a series of burglaries by old white guys, damn right you’d be the prime suspect.
He wasn’t staying at his father’s house, and it wasn’t in public, it was a private place. He did, as it happens, have the right to be there, but the fact that he chose to punch Zimmerman in the face rather than mention that to him renders it somewhat irrelevant.
If Zimmerman was running after him screaming “stop or I’ll shoot”, you’d have a point. If he followed him to make sure of his location, and only revealed the gun after Martin punched him and started bashing his head against the floor, you have none. There’s plenty of evidence for the latter scenario, do you have any for the former?
No-one’s suggested anything of the sort. But don’t let facts get in the way of your statements, you certainly haven’t for the rest of your post.
Wrong again, sorry. Race has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with this case, and it certainly has nothing to do with my opinions of it.
Not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal – boring as hell & I don’t think anyone reads them anyway. But…
If an “old white guy” had been casing & burglarizing a neighborhood, it means that someone had seen him at it. Thus you have a suspect & a witness. As it stands, NO ONE had seen Trayvon do either of the two. Of course, he was guilty of being black. Which is what got him killed. Period.
In short, race had everything to do with it.
Lastly, father/GF’s house, who gives a shit? Still had every right to be there.
“Sigh” you say? Beats the hell out of puking when exchanging posts w/people like you.
:::: puke::::*
*this is why we need a “puke” smiley. Get to it PTB. I’ll even add a “please”
Nothing to do with him attacking Zimmerman then? Really? Do you honestly think he would have been shot if he’d not done that? Or do you really think that Zimmerman wouldn’t have shot someone of another race who’d attacked him in such a fashion?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
No one is stopping you from doing so. Blast away.
[/QUOTE]
What would it mean, coming from me?? I’m an evil ‘conservative’ after all, and as likely as not to be on Brickers (and possibly the other racist pig-dogs who are ‘Zimmerman-lovers’ or whatever) ‘side’ in a given debate. It’s fucking ridiculous to call someone a racist because you don’t agree with them in a debate, and it takes a truly moronic person of biblical proportions to do so. It’s a bit disappointing that this injustice of calling folks who you don’t agree with politically (or on a single vertical issue such as this ridiculous one) racists, bigots or whatever. I mean, the OP is obviously a goat fucker, but not because I disagree with him or her politically, but for starting such a thread and making such accusations for such stupid reasons.
Well, he’s a freaking lawyer…seriously, what do you expect?? To him, the law is everything. I don’t get the ‘but’ here…he’s NOT a fucking racist, even if he annoys the fuck out of some folks because he places such a strong emphasis on the law and precedence.
There are a few closet racists types on this board, but I’m not seeing anything Bricker has said to put him anywhere close to that category. Nor do I see the Trayvon mess as you put it as being a watershed exposing racists by simply which side they are taking in the case. That’s fucking stupid and I can’t believe you are saying that Red, or agreeing with the OP. If there are SPECIFIC instances of racism displayed in threads on this subject, then by all means pit those racists mother fuckers…I’ll gladly join in. But to categorically state that if you side with Zimmerman you are a racist? Fuck that. In the ear, eye and nose. Why is it automatic racism? Because, frankly, though I don’t have strong feelings about the case, I’m more sympathetic to Zimmerman overall than I am to Trayvon…does that make me a racist as well Red? Are all hispanics racist, mi amigo…or just some of us that are politically incorrect?
Because if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon white, Zimmerman would have never seen the light of day after his arrest, and he would quite possibly have gotten the electric chair.
If you think the justice system isn’t racially-biased, then I’m sad for you, and everyone LIKE you.
That’s not to say white people have a monopoly on racist behavior. However, the rates of execution in this country are skewed toward executing killers of whites, and commuting the sentences of killers of blacks.
That’s pretty solid evidence of a racial bias in the criminal justice system.
[QUOTE=al27052]
Because if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon white, Zimmerman would have never seen the light of day after his arrest, and he would quite possibly have gotten the electric chair.
[/QUOTE]
Zimmerman is a hispanic, you idiot…not that it matters. If Trayvon had been the shooter and Zimmerman the shot it would be the same, assuming that Zimmerman had beat the crap out of Trayvon after Trayvon had followed Zimmerman because he suspected that the hispanic dude was up to no good.
I think you are a fucking idiot, other than that you are tossing up men of straw and moronic assertions out of your goat opened ass…just like you did in your idiotic OP.
He’s not white, ass, he’s a hispanic. Seriously, if you don’t know anything about the case why are you even discussing it, let alone accusing people of being racist. Bricker is ALSO a hispanic…not a white dude. So, you’ve accused a hispanic guy of being both a racist AND white, with zero evidence besides your own clueless prejudices (you obviously know next to nothing about this case OR about Bricker), as well as continuing to assert that one of the major players in this little drama is white. You are obviously a clueless get, so no point in me getting riled here…I mean, when an idiot such as yourself talks what would the point be in listening to the silly accusations spewing from your mouth like diarrhea?? Answer…none.
Um, no…it’s not. Unless you think that justice system is somehow set up to protect hispanic males in supposed shooting crimes. If so, let me take you to LA for a bit, pendejo.
