• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Woman shoots man in gas station.

CRUE CAB said:
Approaching someone in my neighborhood is not a reason for them to kill me.
I know how to talk to people and difuse a situation and Iam not going out with my gun in my hand.
They will never know I have it, which is the law, unless they give me no choice.
I have lived where people like to poke and prowl around, never had to shoot anyone. But made myself noticed, and they move on.
Where I live now its not that bad.
Click to expand...

Good for you but that is not true for all neighborhoods or situations. You may have a vigilante who likes to hollow at and provoke people.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Good for you but that is not true for all neighborhoods or situations. You may have a vigilante who likes to hollow at and provoke people.
Click to expand...

More what if what if what if what if what if what if..................................
 
joko104 said:
SYG doesn't say that at all. Nowhere.
Click to expand...

It allows it. That is the point and you haven't addressed that fact at all.

This has nothing to do with any individual case although these cases do make my point why I disagree with that law. The rest of your post is a bunch of crap as I see you haven't proven which state allows "old ladies" not to fight back.:yawn: Then you put a cherry on top of your argument by adding more irrelevant off topic drivel.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Speaking of fallacies, according to the statute, you are incorrect. It's not simply what Zimmerman's perception was, but whether...
"He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

You don't just get to make up a story and get off the charge by saying you were in fear for your life. Whether you believe Zimmerman's injuries constituted grave bodily harm or not, a reasonable person would certainly believe that grave bodily injury is possible by someone banging your head on the concrete. You can be damn certain if a police officer had his head banged on the concrete in a scuffle that the DA would be filing charges of aggravated battery, if not attempted murder. Those are felonies, by the way.
Click to expand...

Here were the actual instruction given to the court which applied in this case: When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon
any sudden and sufficient provocation

So, reasonable believing something is not at all in the language. We have heat of passion and provoked. Done deal- Saying many if not most arguments do appear in the heat of the moment. Both parties in this case were provoked. Zim just happened to have the gun.

Also, under that law a forcible felony did not need to be present which it wasn't in this case anyway.

And, you do get to say you were in fear of your life and the dead person can't defend himself with his side of the story. And, to use the head "banging on" concrete argument is pathetic in light he did not have a concussion.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Here were the actual instruction given to the court which applied in this case: When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon
any sudden and sufficient provocation

So, reasonable believing something is not at all in the language. We have heat of passion and provoked. Done deal- Saying many if not most arguments do appear in the heat of the moment. Both parties in this case were provoked. Zim just happened to have the gun.

Also, under that law a forcible felony did not need to be present which it wasn't in this case anyway.

And, you do get to say you were in fear of your life and the dead person can't defend himself with his side of the story. And, to use the head "banging on" concrete argument is pathetic in light he did not have a concussion.
Click to expand...

So anyone can beat your head into concrete and until you have brain damage there is nothing you could do about it? If some guy slammed you in the nose breaking it and then banging your head on the sidewalk, should he get a ticket? Or on action by the police at all since it is so minor to you.

That is what are claiming. Would that banging-head-against-concrete isn't serious unless there is a concussion then also apply to a parent to his/her child? Obviously it would have to.

Would GZ have to actually be unconscious or dead before he could use deadly force to protect himself in your opinion?
 
joko104 said:
So anyone can beat your head into concrete and until you have brain damage there is nothing you could do about it? If some guy slammed you in the nose breaking it and then banging your head on the sidewalk, should he get a ticket? Or on action by the police at all since it is so minor to you.

That is what are claiming. Would that banging-head-against-concrete isn't serious unless there is a concussion then also apply to a parent to his/her child? Obviously it would have to.

Would GZ have to actually be unconscious or dead before he could use deadly force to protect himself in your opinion?
Click to expand...

I think what people don't "get" is that, thanks to neck muscles, Zimmerman's injuries weren't any more severe than they were. This doesn't negate the FACT that Trayvon Martin was using deadly force.
 
joko104 said:
So anyone can beat your head into concrete and until you have brain damage there is nothing you could do about it? If some guy slammed you in the nose breaking it and then banging your head on the sidewalk, should he get a ticket? Or on action by the police at all since it is so minor to you.

That is what are claiming. Would that banging-head-against-concrete isn't serious unless there is a concussion then also apply to a parent to his/her child? Obviously it would have to.

Would GZ have to actually be unconscious or dead before he could use deadly force to protect himself in your opinion?
Click to expand...

His head wasn't beat into concrete. He had no concussion to prove such a theory. The only thing the prosecutor couldn't prove was how significant this beating really was besides a broken nose and black eyes. Common for physical fights btw. Dead men can't talk to give the other side of the story and there is always two sides to a story.
 
MaggieD said:
I think what people don't "get" is that, thanks to neck muscles, Zimmerman's injuries weren't any more severe than they were. This doesn't negate the FACT that Trayvon Martin was using deadly force.
Click to expand...

The only proof we got was one side of the story.
 
MaggieD said:
What is your point? That someone who kills in self-defense should always be found guilty unless there are witnesses to back up his story?
Click to expand...

Is that what I said Maggie? Nope. My opinion is there are state laws that I agree with for self defense. One of them being Ohio. Saying one of the criteria of self defense in that state is you could not have caused the situation. He would have probably gotten manslaughter which I would agree with.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm waiting to hear what states allows such a law. If joko can't give me one maybe you can to prove your point. TIA The rest of your post is typical ad hominem used when you can't support your argument
Click to expand...
I already posted the details of one, by the way. It was New York. Pretty much any state that requires retreat, which you are arguing in favor of. Do I have to google the list for you?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I would like you to name me one state. TIA

The rest of your post is untrue.
Click to expand...
Here's a list of "duty to retreat" states, so you don't have to google it.
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
Midwest/Plains: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
West: Hawaii, Wyoming.
 
FederalRepublic said:
I already posted the details of one, by the way. It was New York. Pretty much any state that requires retreat, which you are arguing in favor of. Do I have to google the list for you?
Click to expand...

NY has self defense laws that allow a person to defend themselves when their life is endangered. Your example does that show that.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Here's a list of "duty to retreat" states, so you don't have to google it.
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
Midwest/Plains: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
West: Hawaii, Wyoming.
Click to expand...

Which one does not have defense laws. TIA
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Here were the actual instruction given to the court which applied in this case: When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon
any sudden and sufficient provocation

So, reasonable believing something is not at all in the language. We have heat of passion and provoked. Done deal- Saying many if not most arguments do appear in the heat of the moment. Both parties in this case were provoked. Zim just happened to have the gun.

Also, under that law a forcible felony did not need to be present which it wasn't in this case anyway.

And, you do get to say you were in fear of your life and the dead person can't defend himself with his side of the story. And, to use the head "banging on" concrete argument is pathetic in light he did not have a concussion.
Click to expand...
Well, here is the actual language in the Florida self defense statute, which I already posted, but will post again for your edification: "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"....and assault & battery is a forcible felony.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
NY has self defense laws that allow a person to defend themselves when their life is endangered. Your example does that show that.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the stabbing victim who got 16 years in prison for killing his attacker in the hallway outside his apartment.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Here were the actual instruction given to the court which applied in this case: When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon
any sudden and sufficient provocation

So, reasonable believing something is not at all in the language. We have heat of passion and provoked. Done deal- Saying many if not most arguments do appear in the heat of the moment. Both parties in this case were provoked. Zim just happened to have the gun.

Also, under that law a forcible felony did not need to be present which it wasn't in this case anyway.

And, you do get to say you were in fear of your life and the dead person can't defend himself with his side of the story. And, to use the head "banging on" concrete argument is pathetic in light he did not have a concussion.
Click to expand...

It's not reasonable to wait until you're unconscious to defend yourself.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Well, here is the actual language in the Florida self defense statute, which I already posted, but will post again for your edification: "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"....and assault & battery is a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

I presented you with the exact instructions the jurors received.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Tell that to the stabbing victim who got 16 years in prison for killing his attacker in the hallway outside his apartment.
Click to expand...

More deception. He did not stab the block head that was banging a metal pipe against his wall and causing a scene with the pipe out in the hallway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom