John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Billo_Really]

If that call offended you, you are too easily offended to be out in the real world or to be discussing politics with adults.

I'm offended that a person walking down the street committing no crime is being followed by some racist asshole calling him a "******* ******" while he's talking to the cops to drum up support for what he hopes he will get to do, which is get his racist ya-ya's out.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If that call offended you, you are too easily offended to be out in the real world or to be discussing politics with adults.

I'm offended that a person walking down the street committing no crime is being followed by some racist asshole calling him a "******* ******" while he's talking to the cops to drum up support for what he hopes he will get to do, which is get his racist ya-ya's out.

He wasn't walking down the street. He was walking next to the houses.

The only person exhibiting any racism that night was Martin wth his "Creepy ass Cracker" comment.

 

[Billo_Really]

He wasn't walking down the street. He was walking next to the houses.

The only person exhibiting any racism that night was Martin wth his "Creepy ass Cracker" comment.

So calling someone a "fuckin ******" is not racist?

 

[Publius1787]

Why did you post a picture of Zimmerman with bruises, but not a picture of Martin with bullet holes?

Is it safe to say that bruises caused the bullet hole? NOT HOLE(S). Unless your counting the exit wound.

So what if we had Zimmerman dead of a fractured skull and Trayvon Martin wounded by a bullet from Zimmerman's gun.

Your verdict would be Zimmerman died fighting heroically for his life? Standing his ground albeit unsuccessfully?

My verdict would be likewise that there is not enough evidence to prove either case. Unlike you I am not willing to condemn a man on biased ideology amid a lack of evidence.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't see asking questions or approaching as aggressing. Do you?

You do realize that by Zimmerman's own written statement there were no questions asked, right? There were no announcements, conversation, dialogue or even shouting.

Zimmerman wrote down that Trayvon "emerged from the darkness and said 'You got a problem? and I said no".

That was it according to Zimmerman. Google his police statement. It's online and in black and white, no pun intended.

Where did you hear that Zimmerman gave Trayvon warnings or explanations or anything?

I don't see how your reply has anything to do with the post your responding to.

 

[OriginalShroom]

He wasn't walking down the street. He was walking next to the houses.

The only person exhibiting any racism that night was Martin wth his "Creepy ass Cracker" comment.

So calling someone a "fuckin ******" is not racist?

That didn't happen.

That was a lie set up by CNN, btw they claimed it was "Coon". But that was disproved later. The only person still advancing that lie is Nancy Grace.

 

[Publius1787]

For the thousandth time, all we know for certain is that the jury let Zimmerman off.

We do not know, from the perspective of justice, whether or not Zimmerman got away with murder.

All of these ad nauseum attempts to expand the jury decision from a legal finding into a grandiose, omniscient full vindication of a man who surely did no wrong is,

well, nauseating.

It will probably go the same way OJ did.

He'll lose the civil suit.

Zimmerman has to testify if there is a civil suit, which I bet a gazillion bucks there will be. Won't cost the Martin family a dime, either.

So the next time the murderer shows his face in public, it will most likely be in a court room again.

If I were him I would hope that they would file civil rights charges. That way I could sue citing that bringing up said charges without evidence was a violation of my civil rights. He already gets to sue the state of Florida for bringing up a case without evidence, now he gets to also take on the Feds? Too easy!

 

[Billo_Really]

My verdict would be likewise that there is not enough evidence to prove either case. Unlike you I am not willing to condemn a man on biased ideology amid a lack of evidence.

But if the GOP benefits on the Hispanic vote in 2016, we can conclude the ideology part, right? No?

What if there's a Rubio/Zimmerman ticket?

That would be strange, wouldn't it?

The Mexican right!

 

[Billo_Really]

That didn't happen.

That was a lie set up by CNN, btw they claimed it was "Coon". But that was disproved later. The only person still advancing that lie is Nancy Grace.

Dude, I heard the phone call with my own ears.

"Coon" is just as racist as the n-word.

 

[Publius1787]

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias. In any case, if you believe Trayvon was justified in assaulting Zimmerman, you also must believe in "stand your ground," and thus, the op of this thread.

I think the whole "legal theory" issue is pretty tricky. I take my dogs for a walk around 4:50am, if some guy in a truck started following me around, my alert level would be pretty elevated, I think anyone who denies that may be a little dishonest, especially if one thought that the person was "creepy". If I then try to avoid the guy and he keeps following me in his vehicle, I am DEFINITELY thinking that there's going to be a REAL problem, if the guy then gets out of his truck to continue his pursuit and he's not a police officer, I am definitely thinking that this may be a violent confrontation and the only options available would to be a victim, run, or be proactive and get the first strike in so I can prevail. Calling the police at the point the guy gets out of his vehicle would not help my immediate situation.

Now, if I am driving to the store and I see a shady guy walking down the street (there are plenty here and I would be busy) , I may look at him to get a description and make a note of it, I may double back and and or watch him from a distance as to be non confrontational, if he sees me and reaches for his waistband, I am DEFINITELY not going to keep following him! That's not my job, it's the job of the police officers. I am certainly not going to leave the safety of my vehicle to pursue the guy on foot, once again that's not my job and I would know that if the guy was possibly "armed", I could be walking into an ambush.
The above is why, I feel that zimmerman pushed the issue and was the aggressor, the police even told him that if he didn't get out of his truck, they wouldn't be there interviewing him. I watched the video of the interrogation on Nancy Grace this afternoon.

Great. But all circumstantial. In this event there is no hard evidence to make a murderer out of Zimmerman. Just circumstantial evidence which holds little weight without hard facts to back it up.

 

[Publius1787]

That didn't happen.

That was a lie set up by CNN, btw they claimed it was "Coon". But that was disproved later. The only person still advancing that lie is Nancy Grace.

Dude, I heard the phone call with my own ears.

"Coon" is just as racist as the n-word.

You do understand that he never said the word "coon?"

 

[Publius1787]

He wasn't walking down the street. He was walking next to the houses.

The only person exhibiting any racism that night was Martin wth his "Creepy ass Cracker" comment.

So calling someone a "fuckin ******" is not racist?

According to Professor Rachel Jantel it's not racist if you don't pronounce the "r". Who knew?

 

[Publius1787]

Absolute BULLSHIT! George Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon Martin. He observed him acting suspiciously, called for police and tried to maintain visual contact with him. He was told that police did not need him to follow the subject and began to return to his vehicle. Several minutes later, Zimmerman was confronted by Martin. Neither man had any reason to expect that the other was armed or unarmed for that matter.

If a youth came up to me on a dark sidewalk and confronted me, I would have to be prudent and assume he was.
Zimmerman likely felt somewhat threatened, but didn't display his weapon.

Martin punched him and knocked him to the ground and commenced raining down blows MMA style (Remember John Good?)

Zimmerman yelled for help, and tried to get away for about 40 seconds. Having exhausted all alternatives, he drew his weapon and fired.

You may believe any or all the theories you hear on HLN and BET, but the version I just related is supported by the facts and testimony heard at trial.

And Locke was not against wars, only starting them. He was for a quick and deadly end to wars once started.

That's like saying a rape victim had it coming because she was wearing a red dress.

Zimmerman had no legal grounds to be suspicious in the first place.

Translation: It was not legal for Zimmerman to think the way he did. Great, now they want us to go to jail for our thoughts.

 

[OriginalShroom]

That didn't happen.

That was a lie set up by CNN, btw they claimed it was "Coon". But that was disproved later. The only person still advancing that lie is Nancy Grace.

Dude, I heard the phone call with my own ears.

"Coon" is just as racist as the n-word.

Too bad what he said was that it was "cold".

 

[Publius1787]

Actually it WAS Zimmerman's business what Martin was doing that night.

Zimmerman was the Elected Captain of the Neighborhood watch.

After dark and an unknown person is walking from house to house instead of on the sidewalks.

Zimmerman did as he was supposed to, he called 911 to inform the police of a person acting suspisciously in a neighborhood with recent crime activity.

Why are you so constantly WRONG on the facts?

Neighborhood Watch Captain's do not have SCOTUS powers and therefore, do not have the authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

Walking through a neighborhood on a public street, is not a crime.

Last time I checked, the SCOTUS had no right to enforce their decisions. Thus the above point is moot and only serves to validate the ignorance of the person making it.

 

[Publius1787]

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias. In any case, if you believe Trayvon was justified in assaulting Zimmerman, you also must believe in "stand your ground," and thus, the op of this thread.

Since you are admitting that there is no way to determine who started the physical conflict,

stand your ground cannot be meaningfully applied. You can't pick a fight with someone, then later pull out your gun and kill them,

and then claim self-defense.

In the context of self defense "stand your ground" is identical. I can't tell the difference. Can you? Especially in the federal statute!

 

[Publius1787]

My verdict would be likewise that there is not enough evidence to prove either case. Unlike you I am not willing to condemn a man on biased ideology amid a lack of evidence.

But if the GOP benefits on the Hispanic vote in 2016, we can conclude the ideology part, right? No?

What if there's a Rubio/Zimmerman ticket?

That would be strange, wouldn't it?

The Mexican right!

Looking at things through the political lens is likewise the reason you can't make a sound objective judgement of the facts of this case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And notice that John Locke reasons upon Individuals, which are real, and not "groups" which are fictions of the mind. This, above all, strikes fear in the hearts of the Social Engineers.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

You don't even have to walk up to someone to start some shit. Staring a person down, is a sign of aggression.

You believe, let me get this straight, you believe physical violence is an adequate response to..............staring?



Bravo! Just when I thought the populace couldn't get more stupid, here's this guy to prove me wrong.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

stand your ground cannot be meaningfully applied. You can't pick a fight with someone, then later pull out your gun and kill them,

and then claim self-defense.

'Pick a fight with...'

You know this of course b/c you were there?