• Trayvon Martin Case: New video shows no blood or bruises on Zimmerman
    105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35348559]It states right there that if the person has reason to believe immanent death or great bodily harm are about to take place they have the right to use deadly force.[/QUOTE] Yeah, if you then proceed to ignore the entire rest of the document, of which I posted the relevant caveats. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35349030]If it's true that Trayvon was on top of him then it's plenty grounds to be considered life threatening.[/QUOTE] Since when is being taken to the ground life-threatening? This would mean every police officer on the planet regularly uses lethal force to simply subdue people, which is blatantly false. [I]Think,[/I] scooter. [QUOTE=yawmwen;35349185]You can't fucking argue when you aren't fucking informed you dolt. You aren't the fucking police chief, nor are you the fucking DA. You are not privy to some secret information that proves Zimmerman guilty.[/QUOTE] So this means you'll never post in a thread on politics again, right, because you aren't a politician?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35349295]I dunno, the fact it keeps changing and none of it adds up, not to mention terrible police work and this whole incident is his fault to begin with, I'm just leaning towards what makes more sense.[/quote] It doesn't keep changing. His story has been pretty much the same from the start. The media has been releasing new evidence and information as it is released to them. I'm sorry, but just because you don't have the full story doesn't mean there isn't a full story. [quote]Oh I'm sorry, what are YOU doing?[/quote] Arguing that you don't know all the facts, and assumptions without knowledge are plain idiotic. [quote]No, again, I have fucking eyes. For all I know, some super evidence may drop out of the sky proving Zimmerman is as innocent as can be. But from what I see, this is highly unlikely.[/QUOTE] He doesn't need to prove his fucking innocence. The prosecutor has to prove his guilt. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35350158] So this means you'll never post in a thread on politics again, right, because you aren't a politician?[/QUOTE] lol political shit is all public knowledge. I can comment on it because I am not limited in the amount of knowledge I am allowed to learn.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35350158]Yeah, if you then proceed to ignore the entire rest of the document, of which I posted the relevant caveats. Since when is being taken to the ground life-threatening? This would mean every police officer on the planet regularly uses lethal force to simply subdue people, which is blatantly false. [I]Think,[/I] scooter. So this means you'll never post in a thread on politics again, right, because you aren't a politician?[/QUOTE] "In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real." Being taken to the ground and having your head bashed against concrete is quite the reason to believe your life is threatened. In the part pertaining to children and what not, with being 17 at night and being of average adult weight and size it would be impossible to determine in such a short period of time whether or not that person was a minor. As i have stated before being taken to the ground and being sat upon can lead to 3 things; The person punched you a few times and leaves, the person subdues you and stops the conflict, or the person continues to beat you until you're severely injured, unconscious, or possibly dead. When you're getting your head slammed into the concrete and being repeatedly punched that is grounds for serious body harm and fear for ones life (assuming that the conditions described by zimmerman and the witnesses are true.) If a cop was taken down and put into a similar situation more than likely they would use a firearm. However typically police have back up and have better training to avoid such situations, so the use of deadly force would not be called for. So saying, if a cop was pinned to the ground and being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head smashed into the concrete he would shoot the person doing that. If he was in the same situation and had a partner, the partner would be there to defuse the situation.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35350397]lol political shit is all public knowledge. I can comment on it because I am not limited in the amount of knowledge I am allowed to learn.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware police had exclusive access to information regarding criminal affairs! You should tell every news agency reporting on the story that they're violating police exclusivity to information. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35351434]Being taken to the ground and having your head bashed against concrete is quite the reason to believe your life is threatened.[/QUOTE] Being taken to the ground and having your head bashed while having at least one arm free enough to grab your firearm out of your holster, despite someone being on top of you, and operate said firearm unimpeded, is a reason to believe your life is threatened? If you're capable of freely accessing your gun, you're also capable of pushing somebody off of you, because they're clearly not in control of the situation. Being on top of someone means actually, you know, being on top of them, having your big fat body blocking access to things like belts and torso holsters. Or are you assuming Zimmerman pulled the gun out of a yet-unmentioned tophat? [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35351434]As i have stated before being taken to the ground and being sat upon can lead to 3 things; The person punched you a few times and leaves, the person subdues you and stops the conflict, or the person continues to beat you until you're severely injured, unconscious, or possibly dead. When you're getting your head slammed into the concrete and being repeatedly punched that is grounds for serious body harm and fear for ones life (assuming that the conditions described by zimmerman and the witnesses are true.) If a cop was taken down and put into a similar situation more than likely they would use a firearm. However typically police have back up and have better training to avoid such situations, so the use of deadly force would not be called for. So saying, if a cop was pinned to the ground and being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head smashed into the concrete he would shoot the person doing that. If he was in the same situation and had a partner, the partner would be there to defuse the situation.[/QUOTE] Thanks for that brilliant and nonsensical analysis. Aren't you supposed to be current or ex-mil? You're talking awfully stupid for it. "Welp, I'm being pummeled, better use my completely uninvolved arm to reach for that shootin' iron strapped to my current sat-on torso...excuse me, son, can you move that thigh pinning my nine to my ribs? Thanks. Oh, yeah, also, bang."
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35351794] Thanks for that brilliant and nonsensical analysis. Aren't you supposed to be current or ex-mil? You're talking awfully stupid for it. "Welp, I'm being pummeled, better use my completely uninvolved arm to reach for that shootin' iron strapped to my current sat-on torso...excuse me, son, can you move that thigh pinning my nine to my ribs? Thanks. Oh, yeah, also, bang."[/QUOTE]Unless he already had his gun out before the fighting began. Of course that would lead to whole new problems if Zimmerman approached Martin while openly carrying a gun.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35351794]I wasn't aware police had exclusive access to information regarding criminal affairs! You should tell every news agency reporting on the story that they're violating police exclusivity to information.[/QUOTE] Any of the information that a news agency releases has been similarly released to them by the police or DA. Not all information is released at once, and not all information will be released period. These things are not public knowledge, at least in the case of ongoing investigations. Once it gets to the courtroom, all evidence used in the proceedings then becomes public knowledge, but only that information. The House, Senate, and President are required to release all laws and plans not pertaining to national security or law enforcement activities to the public, for the purpose of transparency. [editline]30th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35351794] Thanks for that brilliant and nonsensical analysis. Aren't you supposed to be current or ex-mil? You're talking awfully stupid for it. "Welp, I'm being pummeled, better use my completely uninvolved arm to reach for that shootin' iron strapped to my current sat-on torso...excuse me, son, can you move that thigh pinning my nine to my ribs? Thanks. Oh, yeah, also, bang."[/QUOTE] You're really the one being nonsensical. You really think that happened? Just because there is a struggle, doesn't mean that it is impossible to reach for a firearm. I seriously doubt you have ever been in a physical confrontation in your life, or that you've ever even seen one before.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35351794]I wasn't aware police had exclusive access to information regarding criminal affairs! You should tell every news agency reporting on the story that they're violating police exclusivity to information. Being taken to the ground and having your head bashed while having at least one arm free enough to grab your firearm out of your holster, despite someone being on top of you, and operate said firearm unimpeded, is a reason to believe your life is threatened? If you're capable of freely accessing your gun, you're also capable of pushing somebody off of you, because they're clearly not in control of the situation. Being on top of someone means actually, you know, being on top of them, having your big fat body blocking access to things like belts and torso holsters. Or are you assuming Zimmerman pulled the gun out of a yet-unmentioned tophat? Thanks for that brilliant and nonsensical analysis. Aren't you supposed to be current or ex-mil? You're talking awfully stupid for it. "Welp, I'm being pummeled, better use my completely uninvolved arm to reach for that shootin' iron strapped to my current sat-on torso...excuse me, son, can you move that thigh pinning my nine to my ribs? Thanks. Oh, yeah, also, bang."[/QUOTE] In a fight you don't think, you act. I'm sorry the average man does not posses the infallible knowledge you do at a split second when it comes to a matter of life or death. Honestly, if you think someone is going to kill you would you do something that may possibly not work or do something that'll end the situation? If you've ever been in a fire fight, or in any fight for that matter, out of no where you're being attacked and you've got a very short window of time to do something.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35354160]In a fight you don't think, you act.[/QUOTE] If your reflexive reaction to being punched is to shoot someone you don't deserve to use a gun. [QUOTE=yawmwen;35352055]Any of the information that a news agency releases has been similarly released to them by the police or DA.[/QUOTE] Excluding the stuff from actual reporters doing their job. How exactly are people getting statements from witnesses if those haven't been "released to them?" [QUOTE=yawmwen;35352055]Just because there is a struggle, doesn't mean that it is impossible to reach for a firearm.[/QUOTE] "A struggle" =/= being sat on with someone pummeling your face.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35359272]If your reflexive reaction to being punched is to shoot someone you don't deserve to use a gun. Excluding the stuff from actual reporters doing their job. How exactly are people getting statements from witnesses if those haven't been "released to them?" "A struggle" =/= being sat on with someone pummeling your face.[/QUOTE] Did you not read any of my post in regards to using solid judgment and gauging the situation? Being pinned to the ground and pummeled is more than enough reason to fear your life is in danger when fighting someone you do not know. If my reflexive action is to use a firearm when I fear my life is in danger I damn well deserve that firearm to save my life. You're making this as if Trayvon was patty slapping him and zimmerman shot him for that. If what is being claimed by zimmerman and eye witnesses is true he wasn't just punched, Zimmerman was on the ground being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head smashed into the concrete. If you have your head hit hard enough in the right spot you're dead, using a firearm to stop what could have possibly killed him is text book justifiable under the eyes of the law. Assuming everything claimed is true.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35360741]If my reflexive action is to use a firearm when I fear my life is in danger I damn well deserve that firearm to save my life. You're making this as if Trayvon was patty slapping him and zimmerman shot him for that. If what is being claimed by zimmerman and eye witnesses is true he wasn't just punched, Zimmerman was on the ground being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head smashed into the concrete. If you have your head hit hard enough in right spot you're dead, using a firearm to stop what could have possibly killed him is text book justifiable under the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE] Dude, Zimmerman has no signs of trauma from the video that was released. I fell and hit my head when I was a kid on concrete and could hardly stand up straight for the rest of the day. If his head was smashed into concrete over and over not only would his clothes have blood on them, his head would be bandaged up and he would be having a hard time standing (from a probable concussion) - and that's if he wasn't hospitalized from it.
[QUOTE=faze;35360769]Dude, Zimmerman has no signs of trauma from the video that was released. I fell and hit my head when I was a kid on concrete and could hardly stand up straight for the rest of the day. If his head was smashed into concrete over and over not only would his clothes have blood on them, his head would be bandaged up and he would be having a hard time standing (from a probable concussion) - and that's if he wasn't hospitalized from it.[/QUOTE] I never said anything he said was the truth. We're making an argument over the justification of force based upon zimmermans accounts, not whether or not they are true.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35360741]Did you not read any of my post in regards to using solid judgment and gauging the situation? Being pinned to the ground and pummeled is more than enough reason to fear your life is in danger when fighting someone you do not know.[/QUOTE] Problem is, what you say cannot be true by law. Being pinned and struck to the degree Zimmerman claims to have been alone are simply not enough to put a person in fear of their life. If this [I]were[/I] true, it would utterly destroy the ability of police to perform an arrest on anyone resisting in any state with a statute providing defense against the police. I would think this common sense. I'm done dickfiddling. Burden of proof time. You're arguing a positive, so provide evidence from a court case on self-defense that what you say is considered by a jury to be life-threatening. I'll give you some [URL="http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/felony-battery.html"]actual Florida legal advice[/URL] to chew on, stating that enough head trauma to cause a knockout and a non-permanent nose injury are not enough to be classified as a felony, and since in Florida, as with most states, felony battery is considered to involve "great bodily harm" if not permanent damage, then the law simply does not consider those injuries to put you in danger of losing your life by default. Unless you can find an example of a jury agreeing with you, you're simply wrong. Have fun.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35366159]Problem is, what you say cannot be true by law. Being pinned and struck to the degree Zimmerman claims to have been alone are simply not enough to put a person in fear of their life. If this [I]were[/I] true, it would utterly destroy the ability of police to perform an arrest on anyone resisting in any state with a statute providing defense against the police. I would think this common sense. I'm done dickfiddling. Burden of proof time. You're arguing a positive, so provide evidence from a court case on self-defense that what you say is considered by a jury to be life-threatening. I'll give you some [URL="http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/felony-battery.html"]actual Florida legal advice[/URL] to chew on, stating that enough head trauma to cause a knockout and a non-permanent nose injury are not enough to be classified as a felony, and since in Florida, as with most states, felony battery is considered to involve "great bodily harm" if not permanent damage, then the law simply does not consider those injuries to put you in danger of losing your life by default. Unless you can find an example of a jury agreeing with you, you're simply wrong. Have fun.[/QUOTE] the point he is going for is that under the stand your ground law its if the person them self believes they are at threat of grievous bodily harm or death then they can use deadly force to protect themselves. what a stupid fucking law
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35366159]Problem is, what you say cannot be true by law. Being pinned and struck to the degree Zimmerman claims to have been alone are simply not enough to put a person in fear of their life. If this [I]were[/I] true, it would utterly destroy the ability of police to perform an arrest on anyone resisting in any state with a statute providing defense against the police. I would think this common sense. I'm done dickfiddling. Burden of proof time. You're arguing a positive, so provide evidence from a court case on self-defense that what you say is considered by a jury to be life-threatening. I'll give you some [URL="http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/felony-battery.html"]actual Florida legal advice[/URL] to chew on, stating that enough head trauma to cause a knockout and a non-permanent nose injury are not enough to be classified as a felony, and since in Florida, as with most states, felony battery is considered to involve "great bodily harm" if not permanent damage, then the law simply does not consider those injuries to put you in danger of losing your life by default. Unless you can find an example of a jury agreeing with you, you're simply wrong. Have fun.[/QUOTE] First off, the law for florida already has a clause in it for providing defense against police. Secondly once again I will say the ability to use deadly force isn't based upon the severity of damage done to the victim nor whether or not what was done was a felony or truely life threatening. It is based on the victims perceived threat to life or great bodily harm that that allows deadly force to be used. It says so in the law you yourself posted. [quote=3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE clause for police]A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.[/quote] [quote=3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE justification]Read in all cases. In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant [b]need not have been actual[/b]; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. [b]Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.[/b][/quote] You sir are simply wrong.
man what a fucked law
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35366757]First off, the law for florida already has a clause in it for providing defense against police. Secondly once again I will say the ability to use deadly force isn't based upon the severity of damage done to the victim nor whether or not what was done was a felony or truely life threatening. It is based on the victims perceived threat to life or great bodily harm that that allows deadly force to be used. It says so in the law you yourself posted. You sir are simply wrong.[/QUOTE] I don't think Florida takes into account paranoid people exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.