Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Murder is Legal in Florida?

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:01:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

Good questions. Perhaps this might contain some answers, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:02:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

I urge you to actuality look into the case, ours pretty obvious you don't know the details. There's a thread in politics about it, too.

Further, understand that the court did NOT declare him innocent. They declared him Not Guilty; the state failed to prove.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?

I am not saying it is racism, I am saying that if this shooting is impossible to prove as murder, pretty much ANY shooting after a fight/altercation in Florida is impossible to prove as murder.

All someone has to do is get into an fight/altercation, to be able to shoot someone to death, even if that person is an unarmed minor and the police ordered you already to stay away.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:02:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

I urge you to actuality look into the case, ours pretty obvious you don't know the details. There's a thread in politics about it, too.

Further, understand that the court did NOT declare him innocent. They declared him Not Guilty; the state failed to prove.

If they could not prove this case, they could not prove ANY case. Just start a fist fight with someone and you can get away with shooting them to death.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think your understanding of the whole case and law is pretty flawed. First, the whole unarmed minor thing is pretty much an irrelevant buzzphrase. A 17 year old can easily beat someone to death. And honestly, pursuit is a bit of a loaded term too. But even if the police tell you to not do something and you do it anyway, it doesn't take away your right to self-preservation if you discover that what you did wasn't wise. Second, the law requires a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. That doesn't necessarily condone shooting someone in a fistfight. If you reasonably fear that you're going to die or be grievously injured in a fistfight, however, you DO have the right to kill under the SYG law.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:10:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

I urge you to actuality look into the case, ours pretty obvious you don't know the details. There's a thread in politics about it, too.

Further, understand that the court did NOT declare him innocent. They declared him Not Guilty; the state failed to prove.

If they could not prove this case, they could not prove ANY case. Just start a fist fight with someone and you can get away with shooting them to death.

That's ridiculous nonsense. It just so happens that in this particular case that there was a lack of witnesses and hard evidence to convict Zimmerman.

You're really jumping the shark here.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:12:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think your understanding of the whole case and law is pretty flawed. First, the whole unarmed minor thing is pretty much an irrelevant buzzphrase. A 17 year old can easily beat someone to death. And honestly, pursuit is a bit of a loaded term too. But even if the police tell you to not do something and you do it anyway, it doesn't take away your right to self-preservation if you discover that what you did wasn't wise. Second, the law requires a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. That doesn't necessarily condone shooting someone in a fistfight. If you reasonably fear that you're going to die or be grievously injured in a fistfight, however, you DO have the right to kill under the SYG law.

You can die in a fist fight. And as you said, even a 17yo can kill in a fistfight. So, getting into a fistfight (perhaps taking a few and intentionally losing) will give you grounds to shoot someone to death in Florida.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, but if getting into a fight is justification, one is allowed in Florida to shoot there opponent to death in a fist fight in Florida.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:19:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:13:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:10:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

I urge you to actuality look into the case, ours pretty obvious you don't know the details. There's a thread in politics about it, too.

Further, understand that the court did NOT declare him innocent. They declared him Not Guilty; the state failed to prove.

If they could not prove this case, they could not prove ANY case. Just start a fist fight with someone and you can get away with shooting them to death.

That's ridiculous nonsense. It just so happens that in this particular case that there was a lack of witnesses and hard evidence to convict Zimmerman.

You're really jumping the shark here.

Its not really that much of a jump. It would not be that hard to start a fist fight with someone in a place with a lack of witnesses.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:21:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only valid objection to the law at this point may be the fact that SYG encourages people to put themselves in situations where they may injure or kill others and should be amended to place a burden on the victim to find a reasonable escape to the conflict well before it becomes deadly - only using lethal force if the harm is inescapable and urgent.

But even with that as the law, Zimmerman wouldn't be convicted. If Trayvon jumped out and attacked him (which seems to be the case) and eventually tried to smash his head in the ground, that's inescapable conflict.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:16:55 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:12:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think your understanding of the whole case and law is pretty flawed. First, the whole unarmed minor thing is pretty much an irrelevant buzzphrase. A 17 year old can easily beat someone to death. And honestly, pursuit is a bit of a loaded term too. But even if the police tell you to not do something and you do it anyway, it doesn't take away your right to self-preservation if you discover that what you did wasn't wise. Second, the law requires a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. That doesn't necessarily condone shooting someone in a fistfight. If you reasonably fear that you're going to die or be grievously injured in a fistfight, however, you DO have the right to kill under the SYG law.

You can die in a fist fight. And as you said, even a 17yo can kill in a fistfight. So, getting into a fistfight (perhaps taking a few and intentionally losing) will give you grounds to shoot someone to death in Florida.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, but if getting into a fight is justification, one is allowed in Florida to shoot there opponent to death in a fist fight in Florida.

Except that's not how such cases are judged. They have to do with whether a reasonable person in the position of the killer would reasonably fear imminent death or bodily harm. It doesn't have to be proven that it ACTUALLY would happen. It's all about perception.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:09:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?

I am not saying it is racism, I am saying that if this shooting is impossible to prove as murder, pretty much ANY shooting after a fight/altercation in Florida is impossible to prove as murder.

All someone has to do is get into an fight/altercation, to be able to shoot someone to death, even if that person is an unarmed minor and the police ordered you already to stay away.

The actual shooting in question is clearly deduced to be in self-defense (refer to my comments in Bladerunner's thread). The object of dispute is not the actual pulling of the trigger, but the question of who initiated the conflict. The reason why this one was incredibly challenging to prove for the prosecution is that they had very few witnesses and little evidence. All killing are different, so it's fallacious to make a broader point out of just one.

Seriously... Educate yourself on the actual case.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:31:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:21:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:09:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?

I am not saying it is racism, I am saying that if this shooting is impossible to prove as murder, pretty much ANY shooting after a fight/altercation in Florida is impossible to prove as murder.

All someone has to do is get into an fight/altercation, to be able to shoot someone to death, even if that person is an unarmed minor and the police ordered you already to stay away.

The actual shooting in question is clearly deduced to be in self-defense (refer to my comments in Bladerunner's thread). The object of dispute is not the actual pulling of the trigger, but the question of who initiated the conflict. The reason why this one was incredibly challenging to prove for the prosecution is that they had very few witnesses and little evidence. All killing are different, so it's fallacious to make a broader point out of just one.

Seriously... Educate yourself on the actual case.
So, as long as there are not witnesses or video one can shoot someone in a fist fight.

I think Trayvon had the right to be scared, a trigger happy pursuer with a gun was stalking him in his family's gated community.

So, even with witnesses if someone initiates a fight with you, you have the right to shoot them dead?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:31:05 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:21:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:09:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?

I am not saying it is racism, I am saying that if this shooting is impossible to prove as murder, pretty much ANY shooting after a fight/altercation in Florida is impossible to prove as murder.

All someone has to do is get into an fight/altercation, to be able to shoot someone to death, even if that person is an unarmed minor and the police ordered you already to stay away.

The actual shooting in question is clearly deduced to be in self-defense (refer to my comments in Bladerunner's thread). The object of dispute is not the actual pulling of the trigger, but the question of who initiated the conflict. The reason why this one was incredibly challenging to prove for the prosecution is that they had very few witnesses and little evidence. All killing are different, so it's fallacious to make a broader point out of just one.

Seriously... Educate yourself on the actual case.
So, as long as there are not witnesses or video one can shoot someone in a fist fight

I think Trayvon had the right to be scared, a trigger happy pursuer with a gun was stalking him in his family's gated community.

By any chance, did you watch the trial or follow the case?

So, even with witnesses if someone initiates a fight with you, you have the right to shoot them dead?

Yes, if there's that reasonable fear.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:21:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:16:55 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:12:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think your understanding of the whole case and law is pretty flawed. First, the whole unarmed minor thing is pretty much an irrelevant buzzphrase. A 17 year old can easily beat someone to death. And honestly, pursuit is a bit of a loaded term too. But even if the police tell you to not do something and you do it anyway, it doesn't take away your right to self-preservation if you discover that what you did wasn't wise. Second, the law requires a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. That doesn't necessarily condone shooting someone in a fistfight. If you reasonably fear that you're going to die or be grievously injured in a fistfight, however, you DO have the right to kill under the SYG law.

You can die in a fist fight. And as you said, even a 17yo can kill in a fistfight. So, getting into a fistfight (perhaps taking a few and intentionally losing) will give you grounds to shoot someone to death in Florida.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, but if getting into a fight is justification, one is allowed in Florida to shoot there opponent to death in a fist fight in Florida.

Except that's not how such cases are judged. They have to do with whether a reasonable person in the position of the killer would reasonably fear imminent death or bodily harm. It doesn't have to be proven that it ACTUALLY would happen. It's all about perception.

I am saying that if a fistfight and getting beaten is all it takes for being allowed to shoot someone dead, it is easy to legally kill someone.

Can I go up to a huge muscle douchebag I do not like, say I boned his wife then shoot him dead when he starts beating me senseless? He initiated the conflict.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:35:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:34:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:21:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:16:55 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:12:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think your understanding of the whole case and law is pretty flawed. First, the whole unarmed minor thing is pretty much an irrelevant buzzphrase. A 17 year old can easily beat someone to death. And honestly, pursuit is a bit of a loaded term too. But even if the police tell you to not do something and you do it anyway, it doesn't take away your right to self-preservation if you discover that what you did wasn't wise. Second, the law requires a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. That doesn't necessarily condone shooting someone in a fistfight. If you reasonably fear that you're going to die or be grievously injured in a fistfight, however, you DO have the right to kill under the SYG law.

You can die in a fist fight. And as you said, even a 17yo can kill in a fistfight. So, getting into a fistfight (perhaps taking a few and intentionally losing) will give you grounds to shoot someone to death in Florida.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, but if getting into a fight is justification, one is allowed in Florida to shoot there opponent to death in a fist fight in Florida.

Except that's not how such cases are judged. They have to do with whether a reasonable person in the position of the killer would reasonably fear imminent death or bodily harm. It doesn't have to be proven that it ACTUALLY would happen. It's all about perception.

I am saying that if a fistfight and getting beaten is all it takes for being allowed to shoot someone dead, it is easy to legally kill someone.

Can I go up to a huge muscle douchebag I do not like, say I boned his wife then shoot him dead when he starts beating me senseless? He initiated the conflict.

Yes.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:38:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:19:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:13:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

That's ridiculous nonsense. It just so happens that in this particular case that there was a lack of witnesses and hard evidence to convict Zimmerman.

You're really jumping the shark here.

Its not really that much of a jump. It would not be that hard to start a fist fight with someone in a place with a lack of witnesses.

So the real question is, are you a murderous psychopath who would actually do this? Do you know of anyone that would?

Absent the psychosis, can you imagine viable situations where such an event would take place, where you'd be in a place without witnesses, be on bad behavior, and provoke a fight that would escalate to where you beat the other person to death?

I really can't. If someone's in that bad of a mood, I tend to avoid them. I certainly would walk into a dark alley with them or something.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:39:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:38:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I really can't. If someone's in that bad of a mood, I tend to avoid them. I certainly [WOULDN'T] walk into a dark alley with them or something.

fixed lol
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:39:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:31:05 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:21:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:09:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Stop with this nonsense. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night (except Zimmerman). All of this outcry about racism and the failure of Flordia laws is entirely unjustified in the context of the case: most of the evidence that the prosecution used was circumstantial and not necessarily verifiable by more than one party, for the sole reason that there is only one person alive who witnessed it. Is GZ guilty? There's a fair chance he is. But convicting him based on current evidence is a perversion of the justice system.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the condition of the phone was essential to determining who lied. Why wasn't either side smart enough to bring it up?

I am not saying it is racism, I am saying that if this shooting is impossible to prove as murder, pretty much ANY shooting after a fight/altercation in Florida is impossible to prove as murder.

All someone has to do is get into an fight/altercation, to be able to shoot someone to death, even if that person is an unarmed minor and the police ordered you already to stay away.

The actual shooting in question is clearly deduced to be in self-defense (refer to my comments in Bladerunner's thread). The object of dispute is not the actual pulling of the trigger, but the question of who initiated the conflict. The reason why this one was incredibly challenging to prove for the prosecution is that they had very few witnesses and little evidence. All killing are different, so it's fallacious to make a broader point out of just one.

Seriously... Educate yourself on the actual case.
So, as long as there are not witnesses or video one can shoot someone in a fist fight.

Are you being purposefully retarded? If there are no witnesses and/or evidence, then no matter whether somebody commited the crime or not, he/she CANNOT be convicted.

I think Trayvon had the right to be scared, a trigger happy pursuer with a gun was stalking him in his family's gated community.

This is a blatant lie. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was "trigger happy."

So, even with witnesses if someone initiates a fight with you, you have the right to shoot them dead?

If they're on top (corroborated by witnesses) and beating your head (corroborated by injuries), then yes.

Have you done ANY reading on the trial?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:34:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I am saying that if a fistfight and getting beaten is all it takes for being allowed to shoot someone dead, it is easy to legally kill someone.

Can I go up to a huge muscle douchebag I do not like, say I boned his wife then shoot him dead when he starts beating me senseless? He initiated the conflict.

Being a provocative jerk doesn't mean he's allowed to hurt you. If you KNEW and were warned before hand that he would hurt you, then you officially have a burden to exit the conflict (not under the law, under what I think is right). If you KNOWINGLY initiate a violent conflict and it can be proven that you knew that violence would ensue, you have no right to kill your aggressor.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:10:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:02:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

I urge you to actuality look into the case, ours pretty obvious you don't know the details. There's a thread in politics about it, too.

Further, understand that the court did NOT declare him innocent. They declared him Not Guilty; the state failed to prove.

If they could not prove this case, they could not prove ANY case. Just start a fist fight with someone and you can get away with shooting them to death.

Again, you're betraying a total lack of understanding of what happened in this case.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:49:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 4:38:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:19:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:13:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

That's ridiculous nonsense. It just so happens that in this particular case that there was a lack of witnesses and hard evidence to convict Zimmerman.

You're really jumping the shark here.

Its not really that much of a jump. It would not be that hard to start a fist fight with someone in a place with a lack of witnesses.

So the real question is, are you a murderous psychopath who would actually do this? Do you know of anyone that would?

Absent the psychosis, can you imagine viable situations where such an event would take place, where you'd be in a place without witnesses, be on bad behavior, and provoke a fight that would escalate to where you beat the other person to death?

I really can't. If someone's in that bad of a mood, I tend to avoid them. I certainly would walk into a dark alley with them or something.

I can see people "acting tough" while carrying again to people they hate, knowing that if anything happens they can shoot their enemy dead legally.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 6:49:05 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:38:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I can see people "acting tough" while carrying again to people they hate, knowing that if anything happens they can shoot their enemy dead legally.

I do not understand your statement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:55:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

.

This is a blatant lie. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was "trigger happy."

I'd say Trayvons dead body is evidence. Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon.


If they're on top (corroborated by witnesses) and beating your head (corroborated by injuries), then yes.

If you get punched in the head, you can legally shoot them dead. I think that is a little overboard.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 6:51:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/20/2013 6:49:05 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/20/2013 4:38:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I can see people "acting tough" while carrying again to people they hate, knowing that if anything happens they can shoot their enemy dead legally.

I do not understand your statement.

typo my bad,

I can see people acting tough to people they hate while carrying a gun. They know that if anything happens they can kill.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 7:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 6:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I'd say Trayvons dead body is evidence. Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon.
No, that's not what constitutes evidence in this case. If Zimmerman were "trigger happy," he'd shoot Martin in a more safe situation and position than during his head being bashed. The fact that someone larger and stronger than him bashed his head on the ground, and Zimmerman shoots him in that context, points toward a NOT guilty Zimmerman.

Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing, but having your head bashed on the ground is not a reason not to defend yourself by all means necessary.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 7:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 3:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In regards to Zimmerman being found innocent, I think Florida's laws pretty much allow Murder. I don't understand how it is legal for someone to pursue an unarmed innocent minor, have the police say to stop pursuit, pursue anyway, get into an altercation, and be allowed to shoot the unarmed minor to death if scared.

It seems, whenever someone gets into a fist fight, they are allowed to shoot their opponent to death. I may not understand the law correctly, but what is to stop people from getting into fistfights and shooting people?

The thing is the prosecution has the BOP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The decision of the jury must also be unanimous. If there is a reasonable doubt than he can be found innocent by means of reasonable doubt.

In my opinion, these cases should not be public events. The media always villainizes the defendant, and than people flip out when they are found innocent. You should not assume people are guilty.

There was a lady out west who was driving along the highway, and a woman began ramming her car. The woman kept following the lady, trying to drive her off the road. When the cops questioned her, the woman said she was "trying to save the children". Apparently the victim looked like Casey Anthony (who was in another state on the other side of the country).

The other day my mom said Casey Anthony was having another kid, and that she they should take her kid away from her. I told her that Casey Anthony was found innocent, and her reply was "yeah but it is like the OJ trial, they were found innocent but everyone knows they are guilty". People don't know if they are guilty or innocent, it is people's opinion that they were guilty.

These cases should not be open to the media. IDK why people in New York or California even care about a murder trial taking place in Florida.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 7:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 6:55:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

.



This is a blatant lie. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was "trigger happy."

I'd say Trayvons dead body is evidence. Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon.

By this logic, anybody that shoots anybody at any time, regardless of whether self-defense is invoked, is "trigger-happy." It doesn't take a genius to figure out just how crappy your logic is.



If they're on top (corroborated by witnesses) and beating your head (corroborated by injuries), then yes.

If you get punched in the head, you can legally shoot them dead. I think that is a little overboard.

He wasn't getting punched- according to Zimmerman, his head was getting bashed into the concrete. In that case, considering the high risk of death and permanent brain damage, shooting someone is definitely justified.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 7:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
twocupcakes:

Is it your position that if someone is bashing your head into the concrete, and you have no means of escape, then you should just take the beating, even if it kills you or gives you grievous bodily harm? That even if you possess a weapon, it is inappropriate to use it to defend yourself when someone is on top of you, pounding your head into the concrete?

Now, there are reasonable questions that could be asked about what the scenario was. You, however, seem to be saying that there are NO circumstances in which someone may use lethal force to defend themselves from attack.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!