Indeed. I give a lot of weight to monstro’s opinions of biology, especially the field biology that I think she conducts, because she knows a lot about it. When I post about eight-year-old educational matters, I expect people to listen to me more than they listen to some jerk who’s never read any Piaget. Whatever ywtf’s expertise is in, I’ll give her opinion more weight within that field.
I find it a bit ironic that you with the face dismisses the statements of actual lawyers, with actual legal training and experience, as fallacious appeals to authorities, and then posts links to e-how.
Not to mention posting the statutes for California in argument about a case in Florida.
Regards,
Shodan
Feels good to pass on the Dumbest Doper Trophy to someone else, huh?
You’re a winner to us, Elvis.
Regards,
Shodan
I think this was addressed in Post #5362.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
All that is to support the statement that a punch in the face, especially one that breaks the nose, is LEGALLY SUFFICIENT as great bodily harm. And that means it is LEGALLY SUFFICIENT to allow the use of deadly force. See FSA § 776.012 on use of deadly force to prevent great bodily injury.
None of these mean that a jury must agree. The jury in this case may not decide that the punch was serious. I have no idea whether it was.
But as a matter of law, it’s sufficient.
Each and every statement made above is a correct statement of Florida law, and citations are provided.
The statements made by you with the face, in contrast, are not.
[/QUOTE]
I’m starting to think they are both right, and both wrong. It seems like Bricker is sticking to his point of exception and saying “aha, I got you.” While you with the face comes back and says but if I make this exception to your exception you are wrong.
It is that, or you with the face has truly gone all stoid on us and is certain she has found something in the law that no attorney or judge has yet noticed.
ywtf, it appears to me you’ve gone long and beyond the call of duty ‘putting out your case’ and while, for the most part I agree with you (Zimmerman’s a murderer), seems to me it is no longer up to either you or I – but the nit-picking fucks that care little about the truth but the “rule of law.” Fucked-up as that may be in many a case such as this one, they’ll do as they please beyond any common reason you offer. And trust me, I’ve read enough of your post in the IMHO thread to know that you are arguing from common sense.
But can’t you see? Zimmerman is “especial” for too many reasons to list here – from gun-control to straight-up racism…
So, if I may humbly say so, don’t give them any more chest-beating jollies. No one’s going to bring Martin back alive…and B&W equal justice’s still a mockery. You’ve seen it here if you still had doubts.
Could you suggest a plumber, dietitian, or perhaps a musician, that would be a better qualified to discuss legal matters or court proceedures instead of someone in the legal profession? Preferably someone who doesn’t say different things depending on their political leanings, what cause they are trying to advance, their intelligence level, and their general level of arrogant jackassity or ability to dress their strawmen in red herring-bone suits?
Look, shit for brains. I am far to the left of your Democrats, I don’t know what can be proven but I hope that Z gets put away, and I’m a lawyer from a common law jursdiction who has practiced criminal law, who has clients in Florida and six continents, and who not only gave you a direct reference to the leading case in Florida, but also quoted the test in it to you word for word.
If you hade the intelligence of a gnat and the psychological balance of a normal human being, you would stop falsely deriding lawyers and instead recognize that when you need legal help you should ask the lawyers at hand rather than rely on eHow, despite it leading with “Glam Up: Statement Hair Accessories” and “Getting a Bang out of Bangs.”
Unfortunately, you are utterly incapable of comprehending just how very mistaken you are with regard to the law. Your refusal to recognize Florida law when it is served up to you on a platter and carefully explained to you by several lawyers is just the tip of the iceberg, for you are entirely missing some fundamental concepts, including but not limited to the nature of common law, the nature of jurisdictions, the nature of tests, the nature of probable cause, the nature of beyond a reasonable doubt, and most importantly, how to think logically, for your ramblings are just that: ramblings.
The only thing that you have proven is that you have convinced yourself that you know the law better than the legal professionals who have bent over backwards to try to help you understand that which you are unwilling to understand.
Ample opportunity has been provided to you to mend your ways, but you have continued to barge on through in the footsteps of the Sauropodian Stoid, who was ever so confident and ever so wrong, alienating the very people who tried to provide their knowledge and expertise to her, just as you have alientated the lawyers who have tried to assist you.
To put is simply, you are a nutter.
(snipped for brevity, not for content)
clap clap clap
I would like to second the applause here.
I would also like to offer a hearty “shove it up your arse” to anyone who’s claiming I “support” Zimmerman because he killed a black man. That is a malicious lie, and it’s equally untrue of anyone I’ve read posting on this board. I fully support his right to a fair trial, a right I would support for anyone. I’m well aware that black people in the US are less likely to get a fair trial than others, but the answer to that is absolutely not to deny fair trials to others. The people arguing that Zimmerman shouldn’t get that (hi ywtf and Honesty) are disgusting.
Separately from that, I believe the following things. That Trayvon Martin’s death was an avoidable tragedy, and that different actions by either party could have prevented it. That Zimmerman is a bit of an idiot. And that the evidence shows that Martin initiated a conflict he had no right to, after Zimmerman acted legally, if stupidly, and that Zimmerman shot him in legal self defence.
I also believe that there’s need for a debate about the morality of following someone you have legitimate suspicion of, and separately a debate about what is morally justified self defence. Those debates should, as far as possible, be kept out of this thread and the thread about the actual case, as these are threads about legal issues.
This is a good set of observations. It’s difficult to know how to respond to someone who confidently says, “Because that’s what the law says,” and is so wrong. This happens because just as I could not read ehow.com to learn how to ligate a uterine artery when during my home surgery spaying of my dog, a competent vet cannot learn legal concepts by reading ehow.com either.
What she is missing is a basic understanding of key concepts.
And wears a hoodie.
I actually read the quoted laws in this thread* as implying the negation of that claim, so I’m interested in hearing what you have in mind here as well.
*Up to the time of my recent post before this one, anyway. I haven’t read any posts after that that had legal quotes. With that caveat, it seems apparent that every legal quotation given makes the actual committing of a crime necessary for the permissibility of a citizen’s arrest.
Hm, you know, they actually say “A citizen may arrest if… a crime was committed…”, which makes the committing of a crime sufficient, not necessary, for the arrest to be permissible. Is that germaine to the discussion?
No. The arrest is legal, or not, at the time it happens. It does not become retroactively illegal if it turns out that there was no real crime. As long as there was probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed the crime, the arrest is valid.
I didn’t say it retroactively turns legal or illegal. I said that, at the time it is undertaken, the arrest either is or is not legal depending on whether an actual crime was committed.
Hi Rick,
Other than ‘walking while black’ could you explain to me what Martin did wrong? Further, under Florida’s own very fucked-up “stand your ground” law, Zimmerman was not required to flee before using force, correct?
So does that means that Martin was not required to flee before using force either, correct yet again? If so, what would be your response to a dude chasing you around for no reason at all? Ask him to dinner & a hummer?
What I’m not understanding is how can it be determined that a creep who’s following me, who I punch for following me, has probable cause to arrest me. Let’s say I have witnesses who can attest that dude was following me in a legal yet menacing way–grumbling "kill kill kill " under his breath–and witnesses who can attest that I appeared to be trying to get away from him. If he manages to get into my personal space and I punch him in the face with my girly fist, are ya’ll saying that this alone gives him a legal right to throw me to the ground and restrain me and that the police really wouldn’t charge him anything? They’d just say, “Well, everyone says you punched him, ma’am. There’s no sense in denying it. Now get yer ass in the backseat. We’re going downtown!”
In the above hypothetical, what would typically happen to the Citizen Arrester? In Florida or any other place?
I just want a simple one or two-sentence answer. You can even insult my intelligence as payment.
I can’t believe you have to ask this question. You have no right whatsoever to punch someone for following you. If you do punch them, and that is the only reason you punch them, then you have committed a crime of assault. It would presumably be a whole different thing if this person tried to detain you or threaten you, or laid hands on you before the punch.
FYI, I’m not making any claims that this did or didn’t happen in the Martin case, or that Zimmerman did or didn’t have a valid reason to make an arrest.
He punched George Zimmerman to the ground, breaking his nose and blacking his eyes, then continued to attack him whilst he was on the floor.
Correct.
Martin, as far as we can tell, had no right to use force at all.
If I was 30 seconds from the place where I was staying, it would be to go home, not to wait for the guy, then sucker punch him. If necessary, I would call the police.
Being followed cannot induce a reasonable fear of attack in and of itself, so one cannot use force simply in response to being followed. There needs to be an actual threat.