Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2018, 11:05:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
| | |-+  Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest  (Read 14522 times)
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« on: March 24, 2012, 10:21:36 pm »


Quote
The emphasis is mine. Blatantly ignoring the instructions of the 911 dispatcher is a clear case of obstruction of justice; Zimmerman was thus "engaging in an unlawful activity" at the time of the incident and as soon as that's proven in a court of law, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law will not apply to him in the slightest. Therefore, he still had a duty to retreat and was unjustified in the use of deadly force.

(Sorry if this is post is a bit rambling, btw, i've been up almost 48 hours at this point).


BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

Please Elaborate.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2012, 01:16:51 pm »

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.



His broken nose suggests otherwise.
[/quote]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2012, 01:46:08 pm »

Parse error, the question you are asking makes no sense.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2012, 10:56:19 pm »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2012, 11:19:52 pm »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 11:21:41 pm by Nathan »Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2012, 11:41:58 pm »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Clearly you don't understand anything even remotely counterfactual nor do you feel the need to argue from any kind of general principles rather than absurdly myopic understandings of tidy precise little situations tailored to fit your preexisting dogma, so I'm honestly a little surprised that there are any points in this that you chose not to finesse into oblivion, but since that is the case I'm not independently surprised that this was one of those.

Quote
Mentally aging you to eighteen, which presumably would be five or six years after the incident you decribed, I would note that the person's reputation as a "bully" would carry great weight in determining whether, or not, you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2012, 01:08:54 pm »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 01:11:30 pm by Nathan »Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2012, 01:29:28 pm »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

I still won't grant you the element that it's at all reasonable to shoot somebody because they broke your nose.

Also, relating to what Mikado said: I am the same height as Martin, and weigh anywhere from thirty-five to fifty pounds more than he did depending upon the season. I am thin, such that elderly Japanese women have in the past tried to force-feed me miso.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 01:32:31 pm by Nathan »Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2012, 01:39:22 pm »

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2012, 01:50:22 pm »

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2012, 02:01:04 pm »

Right. It's SYG in a public place that was new about this law, and part of what will be adjudicated, I imagine, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was, in fact, acting in self-defense as he claims.

Duty to retreat's other purpose is, of course, to protect the public from rumbles and gunfights. It can be argued whether or not it does so.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,761


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2012, 12:00:54 pm »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.
He's actually correct.  It's a Hollywood myth, like cars exploding when shot or falling off a cliff.

Well, clearly it's why you don't shoot.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines