Post Reply
Page 5 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 1:58AM #41
Qwesam
Posts: 2,331

May 17, 2012 -- 11:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 9:22PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 10:47AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Wealthy people....


Wealth is not included in "race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender." That means your argument fails with the first two words.





But, it should be included. Because people deliberately target wealthy people, in ways that are sure to be disconcerting to other wealthy people.


I think, "portly white Republicans, of great wealth", should be included in "hate crime" laws, because they fit the supposed critera.




Mouse, do you really believe rich and wealthy people are conservative republicans?  what about Hollywood?  movie stars?

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 2:08AM #42
Qwesam
Posts: 2,331

May 17, 2012 -- 11:41PM, Erey wrote:


Call me crazy but I don't think I would choose to "defend myself" in that manner (ie physically, with punches, etc.) against a guy with a GUN!!!  I would probably choose to flee or if I felt trapped reason my way out of it.  Probably I would use my cell phone to dial 911, while I was fleeing.  I am not going to throw a punch against a guy with a gun. I might not be the most street savvy person around but I am clear that you don't go throwing your fists against a guy with a gun. 


I give Trayvon something akin to a pass because of his youth but both of those guys were behaving in ways I find hard to understand or identify with. 




How do you know that Martin knows Zimmerman has a gun?


 

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 8:22AM #43
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,584

May 17, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Cesmom wrote:

Zimmerman was wrong.  Period.  If every single claim that Zimmerman has made about what happened that night turned out to be 100% true, Zimmerman was still wrong.  There is no way around that indisputable fact.  Martin didn't approach his car and attack him.  He followed Martin with a gun.  He was wrong and should be prosecuted. 



Yes Zimmerman was wrong, but what the trial will bring out is whether your claim here is correct.  The evidence now being leaked does support the claim that Martin engaged Zimmerman, not the other way around.  And while Zimmerman may have been wrong to follow Martin with a hidden weapon, the fact is that this was not illegal.  As I have said, the trial will hinge on which side can prove who attacked who first, and unfortunately the leaked evidence points to Martin attacking first.  The defense will point out that this would have been avoided had Zimmerman not followed Martin, but again this was not illegal.



 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 9:32AM #44
teilhard
Posts: 49,970

There is a Crime Scene Map now available via "Google" ...


It shows Trayvon Martin headed for his NEARBY Grandfather's Home, where he was staying, and that Trayvon Martin was followed a significant DISTANCE from The Night Stalker's parked Vehicle ... 


My Impression ... The Night Stalker followed and confronted a Walking-while-Black Stranger ...


May 18, 2012 -- 8:22AM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Cesmom wrote:

Zimmerman was wrong.  Period.  If every single claim that Zimmerman has made about what happened that night turned out to be 100% true, Zimmerman was still wrong.  There is no way around that indisputable fact.  Martin didn't approach his car and attack him.  He followed Martin with a gun.  He was wrong and should be prosecuted. 



Yes Zimmerman was wrong, but what the trial will bring out is whether your claim here is correct.  The evidence now being leaked does support the claim that Martin engaged Zimmerman, not the other way around.  And while Zimmerman may have been wrong to follow Martin with a hidden weapon, the fact is that this was not illegal.  As I have said, the trial will hinge on which side can prove who attacked who first, and unfortunately the leaked evidence points to Martin attacking first.  The defense will point out that this would have been avoided had Zimmerman not followed Martin, but again this was not illegal.



 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 9:56AM #45
mindis1
Posts: 7,496

May 17, 2012 -- 2:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 12:54PM, mindis1 wrote:


Really? The motivation for a crime is often one of the most important considerations in sentencing.  


And those crimes that are classified as hate crimes, which trigger enhanced sentences, are often quite frightening to an entire community. For instance, someone who spray paints a big red smiley face on a white street-facing garage door is committing a senseless property crime. On the other hand, when someone spray paints the word “NIGGER” on the garage door of an African American family, it provokes great concern, at the very least, among a whole community. It is particularly dehumanizing to that family, in a way that the big red smiley face is not. It has a much greater, more devastating, effect on both the family and the community than the smiley face. Right?




So, again, by that reasoning, if some thugs stage a home invasion at the mansion of a rich, white Republican family -- then that will have a devastating effect and lingering terror and anxiety on the rich, white Republican community. 



False. What you have said here does not follow from anything I said.


You really should try to inform yourself on (at least) the most basic principles of logic. You are obviously trying to make an argument by ________ (fill in the blank), but you don’t have the elements for an _________ (fill in the blank). (Hint: the same word goes in both blanks.)


 


Therefore, rich, white Republicans should also have "hate crime" protections. 



Being "rich," being "white" or being"Republican" does not exclude one from hate crime protections.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 10:00AM #46
mindis1
Posts: 7,496

May 17, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Cesmom wrote:


Bottom line as has been said many times...


Zimmerman was wrong.  Period.  If every single claim that Zimmerman has made about what happened that night turned out to be 100% true, Zimmerman was still wrong.  There is no way around that indisputable fact.  Martin didn't approach his car and attack him.  He followed Martin with a gun.  He was wrong and should be prosecuted. 


Now, we can debate about just how wrong he may have been and just what crime he should be prosecuted for, but there is no way around the fact that his poor judgment caused a young man to lose his life.  Period.  Next.



So, how does one get around the justifiable homicide defense in 776.012 (1)?


You say that because Zimmerman “followed Martin with a gun,” “[h]e was wrong and should be prosecuted.” But the neighborhood watch volunteer did not do anything unlawful by having a gun or by following, stopping and questioning Martin, did he?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 10:03AM #47
mindis1
Posts: 7,496

May 17, 2012 -- 5:41PM, TPaine wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 12:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Does anyone know of evidence that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that such force as he used was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself?


776.012 Use of force in defense of person. --


. . . a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another . . .


www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...



The co-authors of the Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" both agree that it should not apply in the Zimmerman case. Link



The article states:


It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.


"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."


Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there."


The authors of the law do not say why they did not include any such a condition in the text of 776.012 (1). That would have been the ideal place to mention such a condition, rather than in a TV interview.  


Apparently judges in other cases have not found any such condition that there be no “pursuit” beforehand attached to a defense under this law. In at least two cases dismissed under this law there were pursuits by the killers before the killings.


The neighborhood watch volunteer did not do anything unlawful by approaching Martin (however one wishes to describe that act), did he? Assuming that it was Zimmerman who voluntarily came within striking distance of Martin, Zimmerman did not do anything illegal by doing so, did he?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 10:07AM #48
mindis1
Posts: 7,496

May 17, 2012 -- 9:04PM, Stardove wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 5:41PM, TPaine wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 12:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Does anyone know of evidence that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that such force as he used was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself?


776.012 Use of force in defense of person. --


. . . a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another . . .


www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...



The co-authors of the Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" both agree that it should not apply in the Zimmerman case. Link



Good information Tpaine.


From the FL law:



776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself [. . .]


By following Trayvon Zimmerman provoked whatever happening that night.



So, you're saying that when a neighborhood watch volunteer "follows" someone, the volunteer has thereby "provoked" this person to use force against him/herself?


Can you cite any precedent for such a conclusion? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 10:07AM #49
Cesmom
Posts: 4,584

May 18, 2012 -- 8:22AM, Nepenthe wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Cesmom wrote:

Zimmerman was wrong.  Period.  If every single claim that Zimmerman has made about what happened that night turned out to be 100% true, Zimmerman was still wrong.  There is no way around that indisputable fact.  Martin didn't approach his car and attack him.  He followed Martin with a gun.  He was wrong and should be prosecuted. 



Yes Zimmerman was wrong, but what the trial will bring out is whether your claim here is correct.  The evidence now being leaked does support the claim that Martin engaged Zimmerman, not the other way around.  And while Zimmerman may have been wrong to follow Martin with a hidden weapon, the fact is that this was not illegal.  As I have said, the trial will hinge on which side can prove who attacked who first, and unfortunately the leaked evidence points to Martin attacking first.  The defense will point out that this would have been avoided had Zimmerman not followed Martin, but again this was not illegal.




Even if Martin threw the first punch, it wouldn't change the fact that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.  I don't see any way that anyone could dispute that part.


As Stardove posted, you can't claim 'stand your ground' if you initially provoked the use of force.  If following someone on a dark street for no reason with a gun isn't considered provoking, I don't know what is.


Now, I do see that there is an exception if he could prove that he "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant", but that burden of proof should fall directly onto George Zimmerman if he's going to make that claim.  


Worst case scenario, it was a racist and deliberate act.  Best case scenario, it was an extremely reckless act.  One should be punished more severely than the other, but both should be punished. 


From the FL law:


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:


(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 10:10AM #50
mindis1
Posts: 7,496

May 17, 2012 -- 9:24PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 17, 2012 -- 12:52PM, mindis1 wrote:

Does anyone know of evidence that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that such force as he used was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself?


Yes. He could have avoided the use of force by staying in his car. If you attack someone and they fight back you don't get to whine about it.



Obviously you do not understand what the word "evidence" means.  You should look it up some time, if you ever get a chance between posting inanities on the Hot Topic Zone board on Beliefnet.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook