Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8186 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 12:36 AM
60 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 57 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,011 Year: 29,852/28,606 Month: 1,581/3,328 Week: 357/674 Day: 0/70 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Castle Doctrine Summations Only
Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Author Topic:   Castle Doctrine
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 436 of 453 (656654)
03-20-2012 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Cat Sci
03-20-2012 5:42 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
That's good news. Thanks for pointing it out, it still isn't top of my list when I google; nor on the first page, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth ... possibly because it only came out 48 minutes ago.

I note that unless the story is missing some details, he still hasn't been charged by the police (something which is not necessary to empanel a grand jury).

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Cat Sci, posted 03-20-2012 5:42 PM Cat Sci has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5146
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 437 of 453 (656655)
03-20-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2012 4:36 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
Reminiscent of the case where a Texan shot and killed two men who had burglarized the house next door and was acquitted of any crime. Unarmed men, but Mexicans.....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2012 4:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5146
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 438 of 453 (656657)
03-20-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Cat Sci
03-20-2012 5:42 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
"If the racial roles had been reversed, would an arrest have been made?"

Within milliseconds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Cat Sci, posted 03-20-2012 5:42 PM Cat Sci has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 439 of 453 (656658)
03-20-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by jar
03-20-2012 5:40 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
And if that is the case, then it is not 'murder'.

Yes it is.

This is pathetic.

Suppose the courts decided that lynching was OK. Would it still be murder to kill a black man? Not in law, but in fact and in conscience would it be murder for a bunch of Klansmen to take a man who had committed no crime but being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time, douse him in gasoline, and burn him alive?

Good grief, by your criteria we couldn't say that Cain murdered Abel, since there were no courts to say that he did. Hitler didn't murder any Jews, since he escaped Nuremberg. Fred West didn't murder anyone, since despite his confession and all the bones in his back yard, he killed himself before trial. No-one whosoever murdered Nicole Simpson. It's not just that OJ didn't murder her --- despite all the stab wounds and the fact that she was dead, no-one murdered her because no-one has been convicted.

This is lunacy, jar, this is moral and epistemological lunacy.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 5:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 25113
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 440 of 453 (656661)
03-20-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2012 5:57 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
No, in that case it would not be murder.

Sorry but them's the facts.

Cain is not relevant since neither Cain or Able are an American, living today under US Laws.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2012 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2012 6:25 PM jar has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 441 of 453 (656663)
03-20-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by jar
03-20-2012 6:11 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
equivocation much?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 6:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 6:28 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 25113
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 442 of 453 (656664)
03-20-2012 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Theodoric
03-20-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
Nope, just actually try to be honest and use language honestly.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2012 6:25 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2012 6:40 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 443 of 453 (656666)
03-20-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by jar
03-20-2012 6:28 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
Nope, just actually try to be honest and use language honestly.

Try harder.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 6:28 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 444 of 453 (656667)
03-20-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Cat Sci
03-20-2012 5:44 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
On the face of the statute, the following appears to allow shootings by a person engaged in lawful activity, such as following an innocent person in such a way as to make that person fearful or angry enough to defend himself. It would not seem to matter whether the threatened person reasonably feared for his safety as long as he was wrong about the shooter's initial intentions.

quote:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Cat Sci, posted 03-20-2012 5:44 PM Cat Sci has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3359
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 445 of 453 (656687)
03-21-2012 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2012 4:36 PM


Re: Trayvon Martin
We have laws that say that you can murder people scot-free so long (a) they are in your vicinity (b) you subsequently say that you felt threatened or that you suspected that they were going to commit a crime. And that's it. All you need do is testify, truly or falsely, about your own mental state, and so long as you say you felt this or you thought that, you walk.

I haven't read the follow up remarks so maybe this has already been covered. But I wanted to make this point before the thread went into summation.

You are wrong. This is not all that is required for a legitimate self defense claim. You must also show that your belief that you were being threatened was objectively reasonable. Otherwise, it would be simplicity itself to avoid any murder charge. Since we know that people are convicted of murder every day, obviously it's not that easy to beat.

Although I haven't looked in depth at the Martin case, the question is going to come down to whether what Zimmerman knew at the time was enough to justify a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. I don't know what he claims to have known, so I can't evaluate the merits. But it's quite impossible to accurately evaluate any claim unless you begin with the correct standard. The standard you describe is simply not accurate.

{AbE}

Having read the rest of the comments, I note that Catholic Scientist provided what is apparently the actual text of the law. You will note that it talks about "reasonable fear." Simply stating you were afraid is not enough if your fear is not reasonable. In the law, when the word "reasonable" is used, overwhelmingly what is meant is objectively using a reasonable person standard.

Zimmerman could testify on a stack of bibles that he was afraid. But if the objective facts that he describes are not sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for that fear, a jury could very easily believe that he was actually afraid but still convict him.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2012 4:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2012 2:40 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 446 of 453 (656688)
03-21-2012 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by subbie
03-21-2012 1:14 AM


Re: Trayvon Martin
Having read the rest of the comments, I note that Catholic Scientist provided what is apparently the actual text of the law.

No, NoNukes did. What CS quoted would appear to be the Castle Law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by subbie, posted 03-21-2012 1:14 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-21-2012 3:15 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3256
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 447 of 453 (656689)
03-21-2012 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2012 2:40 AM


Re: Trayvon Martin
CS's message 435 also contained:

quote:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Although the above quoted doesn't seem to cover what seems to be the "vaguely threatened" situation I understand the Trayvon Martin case to be.

Reading elsewhere on the internet, my impression was that the shooter was stalking the victim more than the victim being any sort of threat to the shooter. Will re-research this further.

Added by edit:

This led me to The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained. Seems to be a pretty good article, although not one that I had previously read.

Added by another edit (from the Mother Jones article, see there for the greater context):

quote:
After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin.

"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: "Yep."

"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher warned.


Sounds like the shooter chased down the victim.

Added by yet another edit:

CS seems to have covered my previous ABE's in his message 434.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2012 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2012 8:48 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 450 by Trixie, posted 03-21-2012 10:18 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 448 of 453 (656697)
03-21-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Minnemooseus
03-21-2012 3:15 AM


Re: Trayvon Martin
Although the above quoted doesn't seem to cover what seems to be the "vaguely threatened" situation I understand the Trayvon Martin case to be.

But legally following someone might reasonably create a situation where said followee objects and challenges you. You might reasonably and accurately, perceive a substantial chance of getting your butt totally kicked in such a situation. The law appears to allow shooting in this situation rather than backing off.

And as Dr. Adequate points out, if the teenager was legally armed, he would certainly have been justified in plugging Zimmerman. Is this really the way any sane person wants his neighborhood to work?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-21-2012 3:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2012 10:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 449 of 453 (656702)
03-21-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by NoNukes
03-21-2012 8:48 AM


Re: Trayvon Martin
The law appears to allow shooting in this situation rather than backing off.

Not just appear to, but explicitly allows you to.

This is rightwing, NRA crazy taken to the logical end. At least I hope it is the end. Time for the pendulum to swing back.

Wait until a black or brown person shoots a white person in similar circumstances. Then we will see the true motive behind the law.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2012 8:48 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 450 of 453 (656705)
03-21-2012 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Minnemooseus
03-21-2012 3:15 AM


Re: Trayvon Martin
I read the Mother Jones article and all ther comments there (took hours) and it does seem as if this child was hunted down and shot dead for the simple reason of "walking whilst black".

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Under that definition, Trayvon would have been perfectly entitled to stand his ground, not the idiot who was chasing him. The "stand your ground" defence isn't going to apply to Zimmerman give that he was pursuing Trayvon and, according to Zimmerman's own words, preserved on the 911 recording, Trayvon was running away.

You have a minor being tailed by a stranger in an SUV. If it was my kid, I'd want him to run home, get outta there. Right from the start, the only person with reason to be scared was Trayvon. I hope they throw the book at Zimmerman. It's horrifying that he hasn't even been arrested.

Edited by Trixie, : The thread must have gone into summation mode while I was writing this post cos I only got the wee message when I hit the "Submit" button.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-21-2012 3:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014