• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question mostly for the "justice for Trayvon" folks........

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know the LAST thing we need is another thread......but after sleeping I have this final question I'd like to get feedback.

What would satisfy you in this case?

The beat down had just continued until the police arrive. In this case do you believe TM would/should have been charged with a crime?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ needed to be hospitalized. Again do you think TM would/should have been charged with a crime if this was the outcome?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ ends up in a coma.

TM gets GZ's gun and kills him.

Which of these scenarios would make you most feel "justice" was done for what in your mind is this "creepy ass cracker" armed with a firearm, hunting down this innocent angelic child who just wanted some skittles cuz he had the munchies?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,530
Reaction score
38,826
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I know the LAST thing we need is another thread......but after sleeping I have this final question I'd like to get feedback.

What would satisfy you in this case?

The beat down had just continued until the police arrive. In this case do you believe TM would/should have been charged with a crime?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ needed to be hospitalized. Again do you think TM would/should have been charged with a crime if this was the outcome?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ ends up in a coma.

TM gets GZ's gun and kills him.

Which of these scenarios would make you most feel "justice" was done for what in your mind is this "creepy ass cracker" armed with a firearm, hunting down this innocent angelic child who just wanted some skittles cuz he had the munchies?

Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,451
Reaction score
46,080
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why should Trayvon have been charged with any crime? You've heard the pundits, if somebody is following you and you're creeped out then you have every right in the world to confront them, pummel them and, if necessary kill them. The guy doesn't need to touch you or say anything to you. He just needs to be creepy and you're good to go. That's the law.....apparently.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,202
Reaction score
8,876
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".
That just means the Texas law is messed up.


The Florida law requires a reasonable belief. There is no reason for any person to take their violence that far to cause such a belief.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".

As a Florida CCW license holder I have to say you are wrong on that. You can't instigate the confrontation. Stand your ground still means that you do not have a duty to retreat:m. Look at #3

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1373718406.076437.jpg
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,530
Reaction score
38,826
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That just means the Texas law is messed up.


The Florida law requires a reasonable belief. There is no reason for any person to take their violence that far to cause such a belief.

I disagree. Many fights end up with one or both parties having lumps, bumps, cuts. scrapes and even fractures that are "serious" yet not life threatening. What the Floriduh law does is to allow the initial (armed) aggressor to also act as "referee" and decide when they have had enough, if the other party persists after their "its over call" (by the initial aggressor) then they may be legally executed citing only the reasonable belief (by the initial aggressor) that they could be seriously harmed if the fighting was allowed to continue.
 

niff

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
258
Reaction score
57
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
T's so-called parents and the entire Black population want vengeance not justice.
The fact is T's parents never gaveg a SFF what T was getting up to. The old lady had kicked T out of the house before for behaving pretty much the way the old man was behaving when she kicked his *** out years ago. T was basically living with his aunt and uncle and had zero parental guidance. Who paid for T's illegal tats? Where was he getting the money get pot? Where was he getting the money to become a budding illegal/stolen hand gun dealer? Let's not be silly and claim T was ever going to have anything to do with airplanes except maybe to use one to smuggle dope into the country.

Virtually the entire Black population wanted OJ to get away with a double murder of two 'Whites'. Virtually the entire female Black population were delighted that a 'snow-bunny' had her 'White' throat slit. (The fact that the first thing virtually every professional Black athlete goes out and buys himself a 100 pound 5' natural 'White-blond' snow bunny with his signing bonus is the subject of another discussion.)
Now the entire Black population would have been happy to see a Black man get away with committing felony assault on a "Cracker".
News flash! This time the young Black man was so stupid he couldn't understand that attacking some dude for simply checking out where he was going in a strange neighborhood in the rain in the dark in an area plagued with crimes committed by 'bros' who looked just like himself could get himself shot.
But not to worry. Tracy, in his grief, and yet another of his 'baby-mammas' have already made a copy of T. Baby's name? "Teetwo".
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,530
Reaction score
38,826
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As a Florida CCW license holder I have to say you are wrong on that. You can't instigate the confrontation. Stand your ground still means that you do not have a duty to retreat:m. Look at #3

View attachment 67150270

It is this part that I object to:

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.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It is this part that I object to:

If you look at it exaggerated, it makes more sense:

A road rage incident. Driver #1 gets out of his car, walks up to the rolled-down driver's side window and punches Driver #2 in the face.

If Driver #1 walks back to his car and gets in, Driver #2 cannot pull a gun from his glove compartment, get out of his car and shoot Driver #1.

If, on the other hand, Driver #1 continues punching and hitting Driver #2, Driver #1 is justified in shooting him.

As it applies to Zimmerman, had Trayvon Martin punched him in the nose and continued on his way, Zimmerman would have been guilty of murder had he gotten up, went after him and shot him.
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why should Trayvon have been charged with any crime? You've heard the pundits, if somebody is following you and you're creeped out then you have every right in the world to confront them, pummel them and, if necessary kill them. The guy doesn't need to touch you or say anything to you. He just needs to be creepy and you're good to go. That's the law.....apparently.

Idiot George could have spoken up.. Any cop would have.. any security guard would have..

Instead.. we have a dead boy.

http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,202
Reaction score
8,876
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree. Many fights end up with one or both parties having lumps, bumps, cuts. scrapes and even fractures that are "serious" yet not life threatening. What the Floriduh law does is to allow the initial (armed) aggressor to also act as "referee" and decide when they have had enough, if the other party persists after their "its over call" (by the initial aggressor) then they may be legally executed citing only the reasonable belief (by the initial aggressor) that they could be seriously harmed if the fighting was allowed to continue.
Disagree all you want. No person should be able to put another in fear of great bodily harm or loss of life. Whether they be the initial aggressor or not.
That is my bottom line.

And what you are saying could happen is so far gone along the spectrum of possibilities that it isn't reasonable to even consider.
And don't forget that the evidence has to comport with the claim.
It isn't reasonable to think they could show such belief unless it actually happened.
A fight (mutual aggression), would appear as such. A D.A. isn't just going to buy into the persons claim unless it comports with the evidence.
And with mutual aggression it would be far more easier to show ill-will, hatred and spite.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,530
Reaction score
38,826
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If you look at it exaggerated, it makes more sense:

A road rage incident. Driver #1 gets out of his car, walks up to the rolled-down driver's side window and punches Driver #2 in the face.

If Driver #1 walks back to his car and gets in, Driver #2 cannot pull a gun from his glove compartment, get out of his car and shoot Driver #1.

If, on the other hand, Driver #1 continues punching and hitting Driver #2, Driver #1 is justified in shooting him.

As it applies to Zimmerman, had Trayvon Martin punched him in the nose and continued on his way, Zimmerman would have been guilty of murder had he gotten up, went after him and shot him.

What?

My road rage scenario is this:

Driver #1 hits driver #2 seated in their, car as you described, Driver #2 gets out, is HUGE, and it is a full on fight, a crowd of witnesses forms to watch, Driver #1 is losing that fight badly (has suffered "serious" injuries) and says that he has had enough, Driver #2 hits hits/shoves driver #1 one last time but Driver #1 then "legally" shoots driver #2 - since driver #2 "continued" the fight (resuting in "serious" injuries) that driver had #1 started but had declared over before that last "aggression" by driver #2.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,451
Reaction score
46,080
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What?

My road rage scenario is this:

Driver #1 hits driver #2 seated in their, car as you described, Driver #2 gets out, is HUGE, and it is a full on fight, a crowd of witnesses forms to watch, Driver #1 is losing that fight badly (has suffered "serious" injuries) and says that he has had enough, Driver #2 hits hits/shoves driver #1 one last time but Driver #1 then "legally" shoots driver #2 - since driver #2 "continued" the fight (resuting in "serious" injuries) that driver had #1 started but had declared over before that last "aggression" by driver #2.

Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot. ;)
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,451
Reaction score
46,080
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot. ;)

Just from personal experience, Maggie, it's not normal to go after a guy's balls when you're wrestling around on the ground. Once you're both horizontal nut grabbing is just gay.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just from personal experience, Maggie, it's not normal to go after a guy's balls when you're wrestling around on the ground. Once you're both horizontal nut grabbing is just gay.

:rofl
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,530
Reaction score
38,826
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot. ;)

My point exactly. If you start the fight, then you should be limitted to non-lethal force, period; the Texas law says just that.
 

niff

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
258
Reaction score
57
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?

Most definitely....prosecuted for assault and battery
 

niff

Banned
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
258
Reaction score
57
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most definitely....prosecuted for assault and battery
Technically 'Felony Assault'. He would have been back on the street in 24 hours and George would likely have been in a coma.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?

I doubt it. Mutual combat. Hard to sort out.

Unless one or the other of them decided to press charges, game over. If one did, the other would do the same, in my opinion.

Both of you idiots! Go home!
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Technically 'Felony Assault'. He would have been back on the street in 24 hours and George would likely have been in a coma.

Just for legal reference

Since M is not yet an adult...I'd say a suspended sentence and most likely his rap sheet expunged/erased when he hits 18
 

spanky

Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,431
Reaction score
979
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The OP asks a question specifically for supporters of TM. 24 responses, 23 from Zimm supporters...heheh.
 
Top Bottom