I quoted Florida law, you unethical piece of fecklessness. You are wrong about something you have no business being wrong about.
I don’t expect you to say mea culpa, as that would require you to put aside your ego. And Lord knows we can’t have that. This thread is just me doing due diligence.
He continually in the neverending Zimmerman/Martin threads including the closed ones would respond to someone who said they felt it was not right or wrong to follow someone and then claim self defense with the response of how it is legal. Continually, when no one said it was illegal or legal they just said it was wrong in a moral sense.
A Bricker pit thread? Is it that time again already? I thought it was only half past Der Trihs.
It’s actually not even California law, it’s a handbook from California interpreting the law.
None of this is true. He had multiple injuries to his face and to the back of his head. If you have a scenario, consistent with the facts, that explains how he got them without Martin causing them, share it, but stop lying about the evidence that is there.
You, also, stop lying. Florida law allows a citizens arrest where there is probable cause that a crime has been committed, the same as for a police officer making an arrest.
This is why you need to stop. There are posts by people who like you and respect you and who are concerned for you and you are seeing hostility and condescension. On the other hand, you are letting yourself be egged on by people who are not interested in the case at all and whose only goal here is to make you melt down. The only way to win this game is not to play.
She’s actually right, and I can tell she’s really taking pains to explain herself with low-shrill. But the problem is no one wants to wade through the thread to find out all the details that have set her off. She knows this and it’s amplifying the frustration.
People are leaping to Bricker’s defense without knowing what kind of bullshit logic he is espousing. This happens frequently, where he is given respect by default and anyone who disagrees with him is painted as “unhinged”. It’s latitude few other posters are granted, I’ve noticed.
I know you. She can be a little AAHHHH!! sometimes–and no one knows this better than I do! But this isn’t it. She’s frustrated at blatant wrongness and being the lone fighter against it. Personally, I don’t care as much as she does. But I do understand how she’s feeling.
No, she - and you - are utterly wrong. Don’t forget, there are other people who’ve read and participated in that thread. That you don’t understand how the legal system works, or even what laws are, doesn’t mean other people don’t.
you with the face has repeatedly changed her assertions every time they’ve been proved false, coming up with ever more ridiculous hypotheticals, not supported by facts, to justify her quest to show Zimmerman is guilty of something - anything - regardless of Florida law, and the facts of the case.
I will agree with her that, had he taken significantly different actions, in California, he might well be guilty of murder. I’m still failing to grasp the relevance of that, though.
I’ll say again something I said very early on in these discussions. If you believe that Zimmerman’s actions were morally wrong, and ought to be illegal - that is, if you believe that it’s wrong for him to follow and question someone acting suspiciously in a private place, or to use lethal force to defend himself against a sustained attack, then you need to focus on getting the laws that allow him to do these things changed, not on punishing him for actions that were legal.
If you believe that I’ve incorrectly summarised his actions, you need to show me wrong with actual evidence, not constant supposition.
If you simply want him punished because he killed a black kid, regardless of whether he was legally or morally entitled to, which is certainly what ywtf thinks, you need get your racist selves a clue.
Face it, Face, when lawyers of various political bents say that you are wrong in your citing and interpretation of the law, and no lawyers say that you are correct, then . . . .
Bricker offer a biased partisan interpretation of the law? Bricker go beyond his sphere of expertise to authoritatively offer a loosely grounded take on a legal matter?
Naw, that would never happen.
I do think it is wrong to follow someone on a public street and then act shocked when they respond badly, you can call it private but if residents like Martin use it to access their homes then it is public. Zimmerman was not confronting a trespasser on his private property here. It might be legal to follow someone but everyone knows it probably won’t turn out well.
I’m a big self defense fan and admit Zimmerman might have legally defended himself but the case doesn’t sit right with me. Armed man goes out looking for trouble and finds it is not my idea of self defense.
you with the face:
Perhaps this will be of some help.
In Florida, a citizen’s arrest may also be premised upon a breach of the peace. A felony is not necessary.
A punch in the nose is a breach of the peace.
(emphasis added)
Three minutes later…
Bravo, Rand Rover. Nicely done.
you with the face, you should listen to the wise words of Rand Rover. This pit thread is going well for you! Ignore the haters like RickJay and mhendo. You are about to convince everyone you are right. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you. Give in to the dark side.
ywtf: Might I suggest you PM a couple of lawyers, other than Bricker, to weigh in? Perhaps Richard Parker and Hampshire? They are not known to be sympathetic towards Bricker when they think he’s wrong.
I think Hampshire is a lawyer, but maybe I’m thinking of someone else…
ywtf: I have to join the growing group of people who are here to tell you that you’re wrong. Absolutely, 100%, no-room-for-debate wrong. Let it go.
I take no position on whether, as a general matter, Bricker is right about anything to do with Travyon Martin and George Zimmerman. I hope the latter spends the rest of his life in jail. However, Bricker is absolutely correct about the legal sufficiency of a punch in the face as probable cause for arrest.
Bricker sometimes uses legality as weight for moral arguments OR he might dininish the importance of the moral question because there is clear law that settles the legal question.
But in my experience, he is usually correct on legal issues and always intellectually honest. On top of that he at least attempts to be achieve moral outcomes.
You on the other hand think that discussing morality is pointless because you are amoral (not immoral). You don’t see the benefit of having morality beyond what the law and your selfish interests demand.
Over the long run, this lack of morality may affect your judgment in a way that makes your advice less valuable. You don’t have to be a bible thumper but notions of right and wrong permeate all law, even tax law.
nm
I believe Bottled Blonde Jeanie has already weighed in on another legal matter which **you with the face **was disputing. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess which side she came down on.
Regards,
Shodan
Strange, usually when you have nothing to say you post a long drawn out screed.
I like it this way better. Maybe you could try it more often.
Slee
Uh… where?