Teenager shot/killed while Tweek's hero gets off free

[Correction]

Insert your own provocation that isn't a lethal provocation since Correction doesn't seem to know the answer. Must have too excited at an opportunity for an insult.

What?

I was pointing out that your rhetoric paints a picture as if Zimmerman were just approaching Martin to have a brief, friendly chat:


At what point does Martin lose his right to self-defense? He was minding his own business, walking home when this shady guy gets out of a car and starts following him. Gun or no gun, if I see he's still following me minutes later, I fear for my own life. Fuck Zimmerman's self defense theory.

[Dimmauk]

As someone said, in my book, a gun automatically indicates the intent/willingness to use deadly force. Why shouldn't I immediately respond with as deadly a force as I can muster?

Does that go for anyone legally carrying a gun?

[Qalbert]

Clearly if someone starts following you with a gun you should stop and ask them if they have the proper permits.

[Blarg]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lte6hr4EDk1qbrncf.gif

[BaneTheBrawler]

Does that go for anyone legally carrying a gun?

If they're following me and an altercation occurs, yeah.

Edit: Then again, I'm hardly the type of person to initiate an altercation.

[Xno Kappa]

The point was, if Zimmeran approached with non-lethal force, he didn't lose his right to self-defense. If A approaches with non-lethal force, B responds with lethal force, A retains the right to self-defense. A is still guilty of the assault, but not of murder (in most states, some say A has "unclean hands"). Insert your own provocation that isn't a lethal provocation since Correction doesn't seem to know the answer. Must have too excited at an opportunity for an insult.

You obviously have no fucking clue on how self-defense works.

[Jeryhn]

The point was, if Zimmeran approached with non-lethal force, he didn't lose his right to self-defense. If A approaches with non-lethal force, B responds with lethal force, A retains the right to self-defense. A is still guilty of the assault, but not of murder

Pants-on-head retarded. You say it matters if Zimmerman approached with non-lethal force. The word force itself implies that an altercation was initiated. This in turn activates the protections of SYG for Martin, who has every right to defend himself using lethal force.

Before you go saying "the kid should know what non-lethal force is", the kid is a juvenile and not an adult with the life experience necessary to determine the difference between a mugger on the street with a gun and a guy performing a citizen's arrest.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You obviously have no fucking clue

The last half of that post was unnecessary.

[Valisk]

You obviously have no fucking clue on how self-defense works.

You obviously have no fucking clue on how Florida's legal system works.

Someone posted a link showing SYG cases in Florida over the past 4 years and as retarded as it seems, Swamp is right. The SYG clause is very exploitable which is why it needs to be retracted and revised.

[Tyche]

You obviously have no fucking clue on how Florida's legal system works.

Someone posted a link showing SYG cases in Florida over the past 4 years and as retarded as it seems, Swamp is right. The SYG clause is very exploitable which is why it needs to be retracted and revised.

You obviously have no fucking clue that SYG and self defense legislation are not the same.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You obviously have no fucking clue on how self-defense works.

Ha. No you. And you're dumb to Jehryn.

Tell me where I went wrong.

And Correction, your rhetoric implied he did something with his gun other than simply possess it.

[Correction]

And Correction, your rhetoric implied he did something with his gun other than simply possess it.

I'm implying it's possible, but the bad news is nobody will ever know the truth so a jury will probably have to interpret a lot from circumstantial evidence and Zimmerman's word against a dead man's. All I ask is that you try not to sound like his defense attorney e.g. "initiated the altercation by walking up and speaking to Martin without probable cause at night in a rainstorm with a gun and a flashlight"

[zoobernut]

Ha. No you. And you're dumb to Jehryn.

Tell me where I went wrong.

And Correction, your rhetoric implied he did something with his gun other than simply possess it.

You went wrong when you made MANY assumptions about the exact moment when Zimmerman approached Martin. The reality is that we as the public don't know the whole story yet and haven't heard all the evidence yet. It is equally likely that Martin had the right to self defense and SYG against Zimmerman as Zimmerman had the right to defend himself against Martin.

We just don't know either way and to claim on your part that you know Zimmerman was acting legally, stupid but legally within his right to defend himself is just stupid. I don't even know for a fact that Martin was acting within his legal right to defend himself when he started attacking Zimmerman he might have been but we don't know.

You are making a lot of assumptions to how threatening or non-threatening Zimmerman was in how he acted towards Martin.

[Dimmauk]

You went wrong when you made MANY assumptions about the exact moment when Zimmerman approached Martin. The reality is that we as the public don't know the whole story yet and haven't heard all the evidence yet. It is equally likely that Martin had the right to self defense and SYG against Zimmerman as Zimmerman had the right to defend himself against Martin. 6

We just don't know either way and to claim on your part that you know Zimmerman was acting legally, stupid but legally within his right to defend himself is just stupid. I don't even know for a fact that Martin was acting within his legal right to defend himself when he started attacking Zimmerman he might have been but we don't know.

You are making a lot of assumptions to how threatening or non-threatening Zimmerman was in how he acted towards Martin.

Best post in the entire thread. Until we know the entire story under oath, we are just a bunch of Nancy Graces.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You went wrong when you made MANY assumptions about the exact moment when Zimmerman approached Martin. The reality is that we as the public don't know the whole story yet and haven't heard all the evidence yet. It is equally likely that Martin had the right to self defense and SYG against Zimmerman as Zimmerman had the right to defend himself against Martin.

We just don't know either way and to claim on your part that you know Zimmerman was acting legally, stupid but legally within his right to defend himself is just stupid. I don't even know for a fact that Martin was acting within his legal right to defend himself when he started attacking Zimmerman he might have been but we don't know.

You are making a lot of assumptions to how threatening or non-threatening Zimmerman was in how he acted towards Martin.

Ugg. Enjoy thinking that.

[Salodin]

Ugg. Enjoy thinking that.

Uh, lol?

[zoobernut]

Ugg. Enjoy thinking that.

So I say keep an open mind and look at a situation based on evidence and not what you want to be true and you say ugg? I really hope you never serve on jury duty. This attitude is what is wrong with the legal system in this country. I also hope you flunk out of law school because with this attitude you would make a terrible lawyer, defense lawyers can't just plug their ears and say " nuh uh, that's not what I think happened" and hope to help their clients in any way.

I think this is quite possibly the worst post you have ever made in these forums. How incredibly biased of you to automatically think one side of the story is true and discount the other when the evidence presented to the general public doesn't point to one story or the other being true yet.

What is your motivation for being so biased swampy? Are you afraid that if Zimmerman is guilty that it will lead to tougher legislation on guns and more gun control? Are you afraid that some other freedom will be threatened if Zimmerman is in fact guilty of second degree murder or even manslaughter? I am really curious what is driving your bias.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Please point to where I assumed anything. Beginning a sentence with the word "If" is not an assumption.

[Yugl]

Quite frankly, you're talking past each other because you're more focused on the implication of what people say rather than what they actually say.

1. Dimmauk says there is evidence that Zimmerman was injured during the incident as claimed by the defendant
2.Acevalefor says that does not matter if Zimmerman instigated the incident under SYG
3. DonkeyPLD (Should be ElephantPLD) says that even if SYG doesn't apply, self-defense does if he did not instigate the fight
4. Zoonut says the victim could have been engaged in self-defense too

Here is where you all get retarded:

5. DonkeyPLD says that if he didn't approach in a threatening manner, then the victim has nothing to defend against (This is a conditional statement, which means the antecedent not asserted)
6. Zoonut asks how X features of the approach could not be seen as threatening

From here, it's broken down to:

1) Discussion of whether X approaches with a gun are threatening
2) Stupid conditional questions that you both actually agree upon
3) Rhetoric

You're both just as presumptive about the evidence.

[zoobernut]

Please point to where I assumed anything. Beginning a sentence with the word "If" is not an assumption.

You are correct. I see where you said "If". Sorry.