by mouthy 480 Replies latest social current
Worf:
Try to see this video:
it discuss what Zimmerman was told.
Bottom line: he had any right to be where he was. he was trying to figure out the street sign when he was assulted. That there was an assult is, by the way, corraborated by forensic evidence.
bohm- I listened to the long speech. With these 'Castle Doctrine' laws should they be reworded and modified to prevent over-reaction. Are these CD laws applied fairly across racial social and economic situations.
designs: what is a Castle doctrine law?
Defending your personal property ie home or self.
Zimmerman's Attorney last night stated- 'If Zimmerman were black he would never have been charged with this crime' to which Michael Steel, former head of the Republican National Committee responded 'is he high?'
If people aren't allowed to use guns then why carry them?
They are. Don't play semantic games to ignore the point. It cheapens the discussion when intelligent people purposefully misconstrue and miss a point because it doesn't fit their narrative.
If you are going to have guns for self defense then you shouldn't get pissy when people use them to defend themselves.
I don't. I have a problem when people create the very situation they need the gun in. That's completely irresponsible when carrying a gun. What's so hard to understand? The first rule is avoid.
I think some US laws are plain dumb - are you saying you agree or just wanting to be disagreeable?
I didn't say either of those things. I said exactly what I meant. If you require clarification to understand the nuance of a comment, please rather than suggest a false dichotomy of my words.
Talking in circles doesn't really suit you so well.
Sorry, it appear the concept that not all laws are legal or morally right was too much for you.
designs: I dont know if those laws are applied fairly, but I think there is ample reasons to suspect Zimmerman was on the ground with a broken nose, having his head banged into the concrete. I think thats a case of self-defense, not standing ones ground.
But I meant 'brandishing' in terms of out of the holster and following the guy ... would that still be legal?
Here's the trick....laws vary by state on these things. In North Carolina, open carry means to carry the weapon so that it is visible. Brandishing is to either to draw a weapon that is openly carried OR to make show a concealed weapon.
Brandishing a weapon and following someone .... legal grey area. Two guys hunting? Sure. Two guys on the hundred acres poping off at targets? Sure. It becomes illegal when there is a conflict and brandishing is escalating the conflict.
These gun laws are so fascinating (kinda like a train wreck), and complex to this Canadian,,, so just wondering?
They are exactly like a train wreck. It's amazingly complex and there are a lot of legal grey area and it varies from state to state.
That makes ot appear that he was ambushed. How do you argue that?
1. He shouldn't have been there to begin with.
2. See point 1.
Whether GZ's life was in danger or not when he shot TM we will never know since no one can verify what whappened. Because he was breaking the first rules of carrying a weapon as a civilian, he created a situation where everyone involved lost big time.
Where I live, it is drilled into your head that someone taking a swing at you is NOT deadly force that you can respond to with a firearm. Someone takes a swing, follow the first rule, AVOID!
There is a difference between innocent and not guilty. Jurors aren't moral arbiters, they are there to decide whether any laws were broken. I don't think Zimmerman is an "innocent" man per say, but based on the laws of the land and the evidence available, I think the jurors did what they were mandated to do. As some one mentioned earlier (I think it was here on this thread, might be wrong), justice is a process not an outcome.
So to be clear, only black people have a legal right to walk the street in your own neighbourhood? ... that is what some are claiming.
If you get out of your car then anything that subsequently happens is your fault? What utter nonsense.
Incredible how some suspend common sense while looking for reasons to cling to mistaken beliefs. You sound just like JWs trying to explain why the WTS interpretation doesn't fit the facts but is still 'the truth'
GZ had every right to be where he was. He broke no rules.
EP:
Whether GZ's life was in danger or not when he shot TM we will never know since no one can verify what whappened.
There is forensic evidence which is indicative he was in danger.
EP
Where I live, it is drilled into your head that someone taking a swing at you is NOT deadly force that you can respond to with a firearm. Someone takes a swing, follow the first rule, AVOID!
Its a crime to break somones nose, but you might be right it is not a very serious crime.
pinning someone to the ground and pounding them in the head on the other hand is attempted murder.
