Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.


George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Catch All Thread

- - - - -

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
249 replies to this topic

#241
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,093
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,686

View Postzartan, on 29 June 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:



Armed vigilante confrontation seems to be the only sensible answer

The evidence doesnt support that but dont let that stand in your way.

Posted Image


#242
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,742
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Location:
    Huntsville, AL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    4,065

View PostNextYearIsHere, on 29 June 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Should have went for negligent homicide like they wanted to in the first place. Then I believe all they have to do is show that his actions led to the death. Still not a slam dunk, but Murder was a dumb move. I would have thought a plea would have happened on the lesser charge.

It's a little different state to state but generally for negligent homicide you have to show a dangerous act that a reasonable person could foresee terrible consequences was disregarded.  A good example happened here in HSV a couple years back.  17yo kid was blasting through some side streets at an excessive speed, blew through a stop sign, t-boned another car and managed to kill a pregnant lady and her 3 year old daughter.  He got hit with negligent homicide because any reasonable person can foresee that doing 90 on city side streets won't end well...

Is a fatal shooting such an obvious consequence of following someone?  Not to me it's not.  And even if it is, you've STILL got the self defense claim.

The DA should NEVER have brought this to trial.  Shouldn't even have thought about it...

Edited by nova, 29 June 2013 - 10:41 PM.


#243
UF_alum

UF_alum
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    513
  • Joined:
    Dec 2012
  • Location:
    Miami, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    244
Zimmerman is guilty, and should spend many years in prison.

Florida needs to remove the "Stand your ground law" from it's books.  It's bad law, and it doesn't make sense.

#244
Dawgy_Style

Dawgy_Style
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    2,216
  • Age:
    26
  • Joined:
    Apr 2009
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    947

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Zimmerman is guilty, and should spend many years in prison.

Florida needs to remove the "Stand your ground law" from it's books.  It's bad law, and it doesn't make sense.

Why is it a bad law and what about it doesn't make sense?

 bmccall, on 17 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Our phenominal fan base and support is our tradition. Unfortunately winning isnt.

Quote

Alabama claims the 1941 season as a national championship, even though they finished the season with a 9-2 record, including losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt, and were ranked #20 in the final AP poll.

I rape and pillage your village, women and children - Jay Z, Obama's BFF

Posted Image

“Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.” -Ron Paul

#245
UF_alum

UF_alum
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    513
  • Joined:
    Dec 2012
  • Location:
    Miami, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    244

View PostDawgy_Style, on 30 June 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Why is it a bad law and what about it doesn't make sense?

I like common law's duty to retreat, which the Stand your Ground law takes away.

#246
Dawgy_Style

Dawgy_Style
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    2,216
  • Age:
    26
  • Joined:
    Apr 2009
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    947

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like common law's duty to retreat, which the Stand your Ground law takes away.

So you support Be A Pussy over Stand Your Ground.

Sorry, but if someone kicks in my door, I'm not going out a window.

They'll get to see this in action:

Posted Image

 bmccall, on 17 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Our phenominal fan base and support is our tradition. Unfortunately winning isnt.

Quote

Alabama claims the 1941 season as a national championship, even though they finished the season with a 9-2 record, including losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt, and were ranked #20 in the final AP poll.

I rape and pillage your village, women and children - Jay Z, Obama's BFF

Posted Image

“Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.” -Ron Paul

#247
UF_alum

UF_alum
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    513
  • Joined:
    Dec 2012
  • Location:
    Miami, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    244

View PostDawgy_Style, on 30 June 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

So you support Be A Pussy over Stand Your Ground.

Sorry, but if someone kicks in my door, I'm not going out a window.

They'll get to see this in action:

Posted Image

As I suspected... you don't understand Common Law's duty to retreat.

Also, the castle doctrine would apply in your example, and there is generally no duty to retreat from one's house (this is the case whether or not Stand your Ground is the law in your state or not).

So you don't understand the laws in play here.  SHOCKING.

#248
Dawgy_Style

Dawgy_Style
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    2,216
  • Age:
    26
  • Joined:
    Apr 2009
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    947

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

As I suspected... you don't understand Common Law's duty to retreat.

Also, the castle doctrine would apply in your example, and there is generally no duty to retreat from one's house (this is the case whether or not Stand your Ground is the law in your state or not).

So you don't understand the laws in play here.  SHOCKING.

I just wanted to post a picture of my AK47 again, and I thought my line about going out a window sounded pretty cool so I went with it.

Edited by Dawgy_Style, 30 June 2013 - 12:58 PM.

 bmccall, on 17 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Our phenominal fan base and support is our tradition. Unfortunately winning isnt.

Quote

Alabama claims the 1941 season as a national championship, even though they finished the season with a 9-2 record, including losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt, and were ranked #20 in the final AP poll.

I rape and pillage your village, women and children - Jay Z, Obama's BFF

Posted Image

“Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.” -Ron Paul

#249
The Joker

The Joker

    Let's put a smile on that face.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    16,681
  • Joined:
    Jul 2004
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    982

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like common law's duty to retreat, which the Stand your Ground law takes away.


In Common Law, you DO NOT have a duty to retreat..... Where did you get that idea?

http://en.wikipedia....Castle_doctrine


From the SC version of Stand Your Ground;

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

http://www.sled.sc.g...aspx?MenuID=CWP
Blu-ray Disc Movie Collection: 927
Newest Purchase: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

Gov. Gary Johnson for President in 2016


"Honor the vision of your founders, and respect the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence." - Daniel Hannan - British Member Of Parliament.

#250
The Joker

The Joker

    Let's put a smile on that face.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    16,681
  • Joined:
    Jul 2004
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    982

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like common law's duty to retreat, which the Stand your Ground law takes away.


Another source that pretty much says that you DO NOT have a duty to retreat under common law.

http://www.pagunblog...-in-common-law/


Homicide in self-defense, or se defended, upon a sudden affray, is also excusable rather than justifiable, by the English law. This species of self-defense must be distinguished from that just now mentioned, as calculated to hinder the perpetration of a capital crime; which is not only a matter of excuse, but of justification. But the self-defense, which we are now speaking of, is that whereby a man may protect himself from an assault, or the like, in the course of a sudden brawl or quarrel, by killing him who assault him [...] They cannot therefore legally exercise this right of preventive defense, but in sudden and violent cases; when certain and immediate suffering would be the consequence of waiting for the assistance of the law. Wherefore, to excuse homicide by the plea of self-defense, it must appear that the slayer had no other possible means of escaping from his assailant.

Emphasis mine. It is here you can see the common law origins of the Duty to Retreat. But notice this only applies to “sudden affray” or “sudden brawl” with someone who was otherwise not feloniously attacking a person. Blackstone implies there’s an element of the defender having been a willing participant in the “quarrel” or “affray.” When states started to codify common law into statutes, many erroneously adopted this aspect of common law for all justifiable homicides, even ones which were meant to prevent felony. Most state statutes on self-defense no longer make any distinction between justifiable and excusable homicide, though there are many states that allow for the use of deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony. Pennsylvania was one of the states that codified common law improperly, and created a duty to retreat in the face of felonious assault. Castle Doctrine is not really a radical change from the Common Law, but a restoration of it.
Blu-ray Disc Movie Collection: 927
Newest Purchase: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

Gov. Gary Johnson for President in 2016


"Honor the vision of your founders, and respect the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence." - Daniel Hannan - British Member Of Parliament.

#251
UF_alum

UF_alum
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    513
  • Joined:
    Dec 2012
  • Location:
    Miami, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    244

View PostNeo, on 30 June 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

In Common Law, you DO NOT have a duty to retreat..... Where did you get that idea?

http://en.wikipedia....Castle_doctrine


From the SC version of Stand Your Ground;

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

http://www.sled.sc.g...aspx?MenuID=CWP

"In Common Law, you DO NOT have a duty to retreat..... Where did you get that idea?"

I researched the matter, which you obviously have not done.  Here is a quick link:  http://politicsbyecc...uty-to-retreat/

Common law imposes a duty to retreat if one can do so.  The castle doctrine, for example, makes an exception to this duty if one is inside their house.  The Castle Doctrine is the exception, not the rule.


Also-I'm talking about Florida's law, which is the one I'm familiar with.

Edited by UF_alum, 30 June 2013 - 01:19 PM.


#252
The Joker

The Joker

    Let's put a smile on that face.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    16,681
  • Joined:
    Jul 2004
  • Location:
    Greenville, SC
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    982

View PostUF_alum, on 30 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I researched the matter, which you obviously have not done.  Here is a quick link:  http://politicsbyecc...uty-to-retreat/

Common law imposes a duty to retreat if one can do so.  The castle doctrine, for example, makes an exemption to this duty if one is inside their house.  The Castle Doctrine is the exemption, not the rule.


WRONG!  Study harder and look at the BOLDED text.


It is here you can see the common law origins of the Duty to Retreat. But notice this only applies to “sudden affray” or “sudden brawl” with someone who was otherwise not feloniously attacking a person. Blackstone implies there’s an element of the defender having been a willing participant in the “quarrel” or “affray.” When states started to codify common law into statutes, many erroneously adopted this aspect of common law for all justifiable homicides, even ones which were meant to prevent felony. Most state statutes on self-defense no longer make any distinction between justifiable and excusable homicide, though there are many states that allow for the use of deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony. Pennsylvania was one of the states that codified common law improperly, and created a duty to retreat in the face of felonious assault. Castle Doctrine is not really a radical change from the Common Law, but a restoration of it.

http://www.pagunblog...-in-common-law/


Although expanding Stand Your Ground laws has suddenly become part of the culture war, the existence of such laws traditionally depended on geography, not politics. Older states generally inherited the duty to retreat from English common law. As the United States expanded westward, the retreat requirement usually did not follow. Instead, Western states followed the "true man" doctrine, named because "true men" do not retreat when faced with danger. California became a Stand Your Ground state more than 150 years before Florida.

With the prevalent use of firearms, the retreat requirement has limited application today. Individuals usually cannot know that they can retreat in complete safety when facing aggressors armed with guns. And the retreat requirement has numerous exceptions in addition to the "castle doctrine," which exempts people in their homes from the duty to retreat.

http://www.law.yale....tlife/15406.htm


In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square in the West's first notable "walkdown." One hundred and twenty-nine years later, Bernhard Goetz shot four threatening young men in a New York subway car. Apart from gunfire, what could the two events possibly have in common? Goetz, writes Richard Maxwell Brown, was acquitted of wrongdoing in the spirit of a uniquely American view of self-defense, a view forged in frontier gunfights like Hickok's. When faced with a deadly threat, we have the right to stand our ground and fight. We have no duty to retreat.

http://global.oup.co...tab=description


It varies from state to state. Like I said, in SC, I can use deadly force as long as I'm in a place where I have a lawful right to be. After reading the many links that I have provided, you will see that a majority of states have dropped the "duty to retreat clause."


PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

http://www.sled.sc.g...aspx?MenuID=CWP
Blu-ray Disc Movie Collection: 927
Newest Purchase: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

Gov. Gary Johnson for President in 2016


"Honor the vision of your founders, and respect the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence." - Daniel Hannan - British Member Of Parliament.

#253
UF_alum

UF_alum
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    513
  • Joined:
    Dec 2012
  • Location:
    Miami, FL
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    244

View PostNeo, on 30 June 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

WRONG!  Study harder and look at the BOLDED text.


It is here you can see the common law origins of the Duty to Retreat. But notice this only applies to “sudden affray” or “sudden brawl” with someone who was otherwise not feloniously attacking a person. Blackstone implies there’s an element of the defender having been a willing participant in the “quarrel” or “affray.” When states started to codify common law into statutes, many erroneously adopted this aspect of common law for all justifiable homicides, even ones which were meant to prevent felony. Most state statutes on self-defense no longer make any distinction between justifiable and excusable homicide, though there are many states that allow for the use of deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony. Pennsylvania was one of the states that codified common law improperly, and created a duty to retreat in the face of felonious assault. Castle Doctrine is not really a radical change from the Common Law, but a restoration of it.

http://www.pagunblog...-in-common-law/


Although expanding Stand Your Ground laws has suddenly become part of the culture war, the existence of such laws traditionally depended on geography, not politics. Older states generally inherited the duty to retreat from English common law. As the United States expanded westward, the retreat requirement usually did not follow. Instead, Western states followed the "true man" doctrine, named because "true men" do not retreat when faced with danger. California became a Stand Your Ground state more than 150 years before Florida.

With the prevalent use of firearms, the retreat requirement has limited application today. Individuals usually cannot know that they can retreat in complete safety when facing aggressors armed with guns. And the retreat requirement has numerous exceptions in addition to the "castle doctrine," which exempts people in their homes from the duty to retreat.

http://www.law.yale....tlife/15406.htm


In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square in the West's first notable "walkdown." One hundred and twenty-nine years later, Bernhard Goetz shot four threatening young men in a New York subway car. Apart from gunfire, what could the two events possibly have in common? Goetz, writes Richard Maxwell Brown, was acquitted of wrongdoing in the spirit of a uniquely American view of self-defense, a view forged in frontier gunfights like Hickok's. When faced with a deadly threat, we have the right to stand our ground and fight. We have no duty to retreat.

http://global.oup.co...tab=description


It varies from state to state. Like I said, in SC, I can use deadly force as long as I'm in a place where I have a lawful right to be. After reading the many links that I have provided, you will see that a majority of states have dropped the "duty to retreat clause."


PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

http://www.sled.sc.g...aspx?MenuID=CWP

Please explain to me the "duty to retreat" as you understand it.  I think we are talking past each other because we are talking about two different things.

#254
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,093
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    3,686
As a resident of the gated community did Zimmerman not have a right to be on common property in the community he belonged to? Since Trayvon did not have a residence nor did his custodial parent did he have a right to be there?

Posted Image


#255
zartan

zartan
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,718
  • Joined:
    Nov 2007
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    8,133
"True men" don't need firearms