MaNGum
That is all…
Noted.
Hey – I was wrong!
Look how easy that is!
Crystal Magnum would make a great name for a stripper.
Regards,
Shodan
In a rather bizarre twist on the Martin case, one of the Tulsa killers, Jacob England’s, father was killed by a black man who successfully used the “stand you ground” defense.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tulsa-suspect-20120409,0,771625.story
It would please me because they would be wrong. Given what we know, and it is more than enough to render an opinion, it is wrong that Zimmerman remains free. Given the history of the town, the application of that law, and the past of the shooter, it is racism, pure and simple, that motivated him. He needs to be jailed, and immediately. Its been a month and a half. For a guy who shot and killed someone, such feet dragging looks very bad
In this case, the intense public pressure is apt, and welcomed. Without it, the nation would never have known such a travesty took place, and continue to take place. Hopefully this spurs repeal of the law in FL and other places, as it is a terrible and cowardly law
Given what we know, it is my opinion that there is not nearly enough to indict Zimmerman. But there is SO much existing evidence “we” don’t know.
Let’s go with this. How would you write a self-defense-covering law that would not convict/imprison someone who genuinely feared for his life and killed someone in a genuine self-defense situation with no witnesses?
It has wider usage than that.
Man, this thread really should be in the pit - so much sarcasm, condescension and hostility (talking mainly about the last few pages, not the post above, although the tone there is condescending too). It’s really quite horrible to see. And I’m off out of it.
If Zimmerman’s use of the stand your ground law is legitimate, why should he be arrested? If it isn’t legitimate, why should the law be repealed?
I wouldn’t. Common law has always covered this situation. What Florida and other states have is a License To Kill Law, written by ALEC to genuflect to the NRA crowd.
That’s just another nail in the Stand Your Ground Laws Are Fucking Stupid platform that I’m on board with.
So let’s be crystal clear: are you claiming that if you lock your smartphone – not a SIM lock, but the application platform – you can call your service provider and ask for a new PUK code and that allows you to unlock the phone?
No. Wrong. Incorrect.
Note that the SIM card is not the same as the phone itself:
So: do you claim there is a way to unlock a phone’s application platform, NOT THE SIM, with a “PUK code” or any other way?
If so, please provide the cite.
Given what we know, there should be no charges, as we do not know enough even arrest Zimmerman. If, as is extremely likely, the authorities know stuff we don’t, that may well change. There’s nothing in the facts currently in the public domain to show that Zimmerman is a violent racist. There’s an edited tape that may or may not be a racial slur, and some accusations of violence that never went to court. That is evidence of nothing at all.
Shooting and killing someone is not, in Florida, a crime in and of itself. If, as is the case here, there is real doubt if a crime has even been committed, it is absolutely right to wait, rather than falsely arrest someone.
Pressure for an investigation is one thing. Pressure for arrest, charge, and conviction without evidence is a completely different thing, and is not apt, and no right-thinking person should welcome it. The only travesty I see is people calling for the abandonment of the process of law when they dislike the outcome.
That said, the law needs to be amended to remove the protection from arrest element. Apart from that, I have no problem with someone being able to defend themselves from the threat of serious injury or death by any means necessary, and frankly wonder about the motivations of those that do have a problem with it.
The only real difference in the Florida law SYG law is that Zimmerman is protected from civil action by Martin’s family and he didn’t have to make bail. There have been many cases of people using deadly force against unarmed opponents before the Stand Your Ground law.
If you eliminate concealed carry, then you give license for the strong to assault the weak, the young to assault the old and men to assault women.
I not sure the practical difference is that much. Angela Corey managed to arrest a guy in Jacksonville within a couple of days last month who made a SYG defense. If she arrested Zimmerman without probable cause he would be released within 24 hours. The lack of probable cause in the case seem to be the distinguishing feature.
As one who opposes broad SYG laws such as Florida’s, I’d be happy to clear up your suspicions. I have no problem with the targets of violent crime fighting back with deadly force. But I don’t want laws that enable vigilantes to provoke conflicts, then claim “SYG” when the target of their antagonism reacts defensively with a physical act that is then stretched into grounds for an SYG homicide. That is what I think happened in Florida.
If somebody goes out of their way to provoke an incident with someone who is otherwise minding their own business and obeying the law, they should not be protected from prosecution if the incident escalates and they find themselves on the shitty end of a whuppin’. In my opinion, that is what happened to George Zimmerman, and if he had his bell rung on the lawn, he has no one to blame but himself. It certainly justifies prosecution where the details can be presented for a court to decide if a crime has been committed.
But police should never feel like they have no choice but to release anyone who speaks the magic words, “Stand Your Ground!” after dispatching someone who smacked them for being a nosey asshole. Any laws that prevent jackwagons like George Zimmerman from being arrested after killing an unarmed man should be changed.
No. There is another big difference: the “immune from prosecution,” provision.
nm
So, you think it’s fine to hit someone, to the point of kicking the crap out of someone, for talking to them, but it’s not ok to shoot the person who starts an unprovoked attack. Asking someone what they are doing is not a provocative act, as it is trivial to ignore it. But thanks for clearing it up, I didn’t want to assume it was because you were fine with people wandering around kicking the crap out of people with no fear of reprisals, because that is an idiotic viewpoint, and I try not to assume people are idiots. I’m happy to wait for proof.
So… to be clear, if it turns out that Zimmerman had a video camera running the whole time, and the footage reveals that he approached Martin, asked him, “What are you doing here? What’s your business here? Are you up to no good?” and Martin responded by hitting Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, and bloodying his nose by punching him repeatedly… if all that happened just like that, your view is that Zimmerman should have no legal right to use a gun to defend himself?
I love how people say, “Hey, he was just talking to him, that’s not illegal – and carrying a gun isn’t illegal, either”, like Zimmerman was just keen to solicit Martin’s opinion of 9MM’s, conveniently ignoring the reason why he was talking to the kid with a gun stuffed in his waistband in the first place. And that reason is, “because these assholes always get away.”
Zimmerman provoked the situation by getting out of his car with a gun to follow Martin who was doing nothing wrong. Martin got shot for it, regardless of how he reacted to the confrontation.