RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE

RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 3:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim If your opponent grabs for your gun it is just as likely, if not more likely, because they intend to kill...just like Trayvon had told his 'girlfriend' he was going to do to the "creepy ass cracker" following him just a couple minutes before Trayvon grab for Zimmerman's gun. If I am in a fight with someone and I see they have a gun you can be sure I'm going to do what ever necessary to either disarm them or gain control of that weapon. To do otherwise would be foolish in the extreme. whoooaaaaa here, nowww haven't you been contending all along you would be obligated under law to RETREAT? now you are saying in a real world situtation you would make a play for the gun and escalate the situation? thank you for making my point here! No. I'm saying if I'm in a fight, which I do always try and avoid, I've already exhausted my ability to retreat. Stop trying to twist things to fit your preconceptions. how am I twisting things here, all threw this you have maintained there is an obligation to retreat on both sides... then you flatly stated once the fight is on you would not retreat you'd grab for the gun isn't that the exact situtation zim and martian found themselves in? the fight is underway, there is a grab for the gun, someone maintianed, gained, or regained control and shot you have maintained all threw this zimerman is guilty, when we all know for SURE there was a fight already in progress before he shot now you say once the fight is in progress there is no way to retreat honestly dude, take your time and explain it to me maybe a lil more clearly cause now I am confused

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 3:54:27 PM)
Oh my. Blackstone, really? No attempt to insert American law, only Blackstone?? The Blackstone who in your referenced work writes: If trespassers in forests, parks, chases, or warrens, will not surrender themselves to the keepers, they may be slain Seriously? That Blackstone?? The one who takes issue with Locke? To wit, John Locke, who wrote: "that all manner of force without right upon a man's person, puts him in a state of war with the aggressor; and, of consequence, that, being in such a state of war, he may lawfully kill him that puts him under this unnatural restraint." You know, the Locke upon whose work so much of our law is based (as opposed to the renowned apologist for royal power, Blackstone? In any case, just as we have decided to change the law regarding trespassers in parks, so also have we decided to change Blackstone's vision of permissible self-defense; and in both instances for the better

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 3:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin how am I twisting things here, all threw this you have maintained there is an obligation to retreat on both sides... then you flatly stated once the fight is on you would not retreat you'd grab for the gun isn't that the exact situtation zim and martian found themselves in? the fight is underway, there is a grab for the gun, someone maintianed, gained, or regained control and shot you have maintained all threw this zimerman is guilty, when we all know for SURE there was a fight already in progress before he shot now you say once the fight is in progress there is no way to retreat honestly dude, take your time and explain it to me maybe a lil more clearly cause now I am confused I already said this once so now try reading this carefully and find some one to explain the words you don't understand: If I'm involved in a fight I've already exhausted all means of retreat. I'm a pacifist and do not engage in violence if it is at all possible to avoid it. Zimmerman on the other hand did initiate the encounter by getting out of his truck and following Martin against the rules of all neighborhood watch programs and against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher so it is obvious he did not exhaust his ability to retreat.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 3:59:20 PM)
quote: Have you ever tried to take a pistol out of a secure holster someone else was wearing? They are expressly designed for that to be next to impossible. The only viable way would be to knock me out and take the holster off me, put it on and figure out which kind it was and what the release mechanic is. no I can't honeslty say I have. so you are saying in a fight you'd have complete faith in your secure holster enough that you would ignore the play for the gun and just continue the fight as if there was no weapon in play? I'm just asking here, maybe you could tell me a lil more about this holster? is this a belt holster or under your arm type holster maybe a you could just give me a make & model so I can go look it up?

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:00:35 PM)
quote: If I ever carry a gun in public it will be in a secure holster and another person grabbing for it won't worry me. Well-trained in weapons retention, are you? Knowledgeable as to how bulky and cumbersome level 3 holsters are, uh? And how expensive? Then no doubt you're also aware that you probably cannot draw your weapon if your strongside hand or arm is injured, and that they're lethally slow in far too many cases even if uninjured. Which is why most cops won't carry them. And why i sneer at them. Almost might as well carry an unloaded gun.

Kana -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Oh my. Blackstone, really? No attempt to insert American law, only Blackstone?? The Blackstone who in your referenced work writes: If trespassers in forests, parks, chases, or warrens, will not surrender themselves to the keepers, they may be slain Seriously? That Blackstone?? The one who takes issue with Locke? To wit, John Locke, who wrote: "that all manner of force without right upon a man's person, puts him in a state of war with the aggressor; and, of consequence, that, being in such a state of war, he may lawfully kill him that puts him under this unnatural restraint." You know, the Locke upon whose work so much of our law is based (as opposed to the renowned apologist for royal power, Blackstone? In any case, just as we have decided to change the law regarding trespassers in parks, so also have we decided to change Blackstone's vision of permissible self-defense; and in both instances for the better Hey,let's not be knocking too hard on Blackstone here. The man did summarize the basics of what would be common law. Course, the problem with citing Blackstone is that while precedent might work great in some cases, in this instance, Florida has codified law and that's gonna overrule precedent.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Oh my. Blackstone, really? No attempt to insert American law, only Blackstone?? The Blackstone who in your referenced work writes: If trespassers in forests, parks, chases, or warrens, will not surrender themselves to the keepers, they may be slain Seriously? That Blackstone?? The one who takes issue with Locke? To wit, John Locke, who wrote: "that all manner of force without right upon a man's person, puts him in a state of war with the aggressor; and, of consequence, that, being in such a state of war, he may lawfully kill him that puts him under this unnatural restraint." You know, the Locke upon whose work so much of our law is based (as opposed to the renowned apologist for royal power, Blackstone? In any case, just as we have decided to change the law regarding trespassers in parks, so also have we decided to change Blackstone's vision of permissible self-defense; and in both instances for the better Blackstone's Commentaries are the major early treatise on English common law which forms the basis for our common law. Since the question was when did the duty to retreat originate showing that it existed in English common law at the time of Blackstone shows it is not some recent invention which is what you claimed. Now if you are done with your strawman would you care to deal with the actual subject?

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:03:48 PM)
Well... that is indeed a question for the jury to decide, and one that they will in fact decide if the prosecution is deemed to have made the elements of the crime. In my opinion lethal force was justified just from the "ground and pound". Add in the assailant going for the victim's gun (which you understandably and desperately want to omit), and it's a no-brainer.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: If I ever carry a gun in public it will be in a secure holster and another person grabbing for it won't worry me. Well-trained in weapons retention, are you? Knowledgeable as to how bulky and cumbersome level 3 holsters are, uh? And how expensive? Then no doubt you're also aware that you probably cannot draw your weapon if your strongside hand or arm is injured, and that they're lethally slow in far too many cases even if uninjured. Which is why most cops won't carry them. And why i sneer at them. Almost might as well carry an unloaded gun. There are level II holsters that are still very secure and still next to impossible to draw unless you are both wearing the holster and know the trick. Or is this another strawman?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin lets take a hypothetical situation, you're out with your GF, you have your gun on your person, some guy in a parking lot makes an off color comment about your GF, you confront him and things get heated, st some point one or the other takes a swing and the fight is on, the guy sees your gun, and even though you have not drawn it or even threathened to draw it he makes a grab for it. what ya gonna do? you going to just let him have it and hope for he best? you going to try to maintian control and hold on tight and hope for the best? or like I think most would you, you going to take the shot and take your chances in court? that is in my opinion is how things happen in the real world If I ever carry a gun in public it will be in a secure holster and another person grabbing for it won't worry me. You see I'm not a fucking moron and would never carry a weapon in a way that would make me less safe. secure or not, once the fight is in progress and the gun is seen, and the other person makes a play/grab for it wouldn't you say its now your obligation to maintain control of it? you said yourself if in a fight you saw a gun you'd make a play for it or are you saying if you saw a gun and saw it was in a secure holster you'd then rethink your attempt to gain control of it? put yourself in the position of being the gun carrier and tell me what you would do once the gun is seen and a grab for it is made This is where the whole scenario and a person's reaction to it are sooo vastly different in most countries where guns aren't so common and things like concealed carry just don't exist - and for good reason too. Right at the start of your scenario - "you're out with your GF, you have your gun on your person, some guy in a parking lot makes an off color comment about your GF, you confront him and things get heated..." For a start, most of us wouldn't be carrying a weapon because we don't allow it and if we did we would avoid places where we felt it necessary to carry one. That's common sense (which a lot seem to have lost somewhere). And you end that last bit with "you confront him...". Well, any sane sensible person isn't going to spoil their evening by getting all riled up and wanting to confront every stupid jackass prick that passes an unsavoury asswipe comment at you or your GF. Unless you are out looking for trouble to impress your 'uber-manliness' to your GF, you would ignore those pricks even if they came up to your face and started shouting. You would ignore them and get yourself and your GF out of harm's way and home where you can shag the ass off her! It's this sort of redneck attitude that is frequently the cause of many unneccessary confrontations that are one of the many statistics of gun deaths in the US. It is also the reason why crazy laws like SYG even get off the ground. I also suspect that it had something to do with GZ's attitude to blacks walking the streets and why he chose to follow Martin - and we all know the outcome of that episode!

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin lets take a hypothetical situation, you're out with your GF, you have your gun on your person, some guy in a parking lot makes an off color comment about your GF, you confront him and things get heated, st some point one or the other takes a swing and the fight is on, the guy sees your gun, and even though you have not drawn it or even threathened to draw it he makes a grab for it. what ya gonna do? you going to just let him have it and hope for he best? you going to try to maintian control and hold on tight and hope for the best? or like I think most would you, you going to take the shot and take your chances in court? that is in my opinion is how things happen in the real world If I ever carry a gun in public it will be in a secure holster and another person grabbing for it won't worry me. You see I'm not a fucking moron and would never carry a weapon in a way that would make me less safe. Cops have had guns taken from their holster so wrong again.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin how am I twisting things here, all threw this you have maintained there is an obligation to retreat on both sides... then you flatly stated once the fight is on you would not retreat you'd grab for the gun isn't that the exact situtation zim and martian found themselves in? the fight is underway, there is a grab for the gun, someone maintianed, gained, or regained control and shot you have maintained all threw this zimerman is guilty, when we all know for SURE there was a fight already in progress before he shot now you say once the fight is in progress there is no way to retreat honestly dude, take your time and explain it to me maybe a lil more clearly cause now I am confused I already said this once so now try reading this carefully and find some one to explain the words you don't understand: If I'm involved in a fight I've already exhausted all means of retreat. I'm a pacifist and do not engage in violence if it is at all possible to avoid it. Zimmerman on the other hand did initiate the encounter by getting out of his truck and following Martin against the rules of all neighborhood watch programs and against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher so it is obvious he did not exhaust his ability to retreat. sorry, but you can say that over an over all you want, but many reasonable people here do not see it that way, the police did not see it that way, the prosecutors office did not see it that way, following someone does not constitute intitiation of an encounter although losing someone, circling back and confronting them I think does.. also it has been established threw the transcript of the 911 call, there were no explicite instructions to not follow at BEST it was a suggestion telling someone the do not need to do something is NOT an explicite instruction, order or command to not do something

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:10:29 PM)
quote: They are expressly designed for that to be next to impossible. Close. They are sufficiently well-designed to make it difficult. The easiest way to defeat them is simply to mimic the drawing motion/grip of the holster (especially easy if the wearer is wearing his holster cross-draw, or a shoulder holster); alternatively a weakhand steal can be effected. There's not that many of them; and yes, people (thugs and non-thugs alike) have been known to train to defeat them. Including me. Just in case.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: Have you ever tried to take a pistol out of a secure holster someone else was wearing? They are expressly designed for that to be next to impossible. The only viable way would be to knock me out and take the holster off me, put it on and figure out which kind it was and what the release mechanic is. no I can't honeslty say I have. so you are saying in a fight you'd have complete faith in your secure holster enough that you would ignore the play for the gun and just continue the fight as if there was no weapon in play? I'm just asking here, maybe you could tell me a lil more about this holster? is this a belt holster or under your arm type holster maybe a you could just give me a make & model so I can go look it up? The holster's are designed for just about any position of carry (can't say I've eve heard of a secure ankle holster). And yes I would have faith in anything I bought for such a purpose or I wouldn't carry. Again I would never carry a firearm in a way that made me less safe. Safariland is a major manufacturer. Pretty sure there are others.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That's not the law anywhere You and others insist that Zimmerman wasn't injured enough to justify self defense if I'm wrong you have been pushing a known false position. No. What we're saying is his injuries do not support his claim that Martin was bashing his head into the sidewalk so hard he felt an imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. To those of use who speak English you just agreed with me.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:14:18 PM)
Certainly. Perhaps you missed it. In any case, just as we have decided to change the law regarding trespassers in parks, so also have we decided to change Blackstone's vision of permissible self-defense; and in both instances for the better

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Do you not get it? People are getting killed because of that law. Combining shall issue concealed carry laws and SYG means complete buffoons who shouldn't even own a gun are going about in public armed and they are shooting people because of things like a disagreement over loud music. Citation must show total effects not isolated incidents and once again there has to be something wrong with anyone who disagrees with you. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/stand_your_ground_law_helps_white_defendants_a_lot_more_than_black_ones/ I did particularly like the guy who got off on SYG grounds after catching his wife having sex, going back into his bedroom, getting his gun, returning to the living room and shooting the wife's boyfriend. Which was the law in several states long before SYG was ever thought of

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: They are expressly designed for that to be next to impossible. Close. They are sufficiently well-designed to make it difficult. The easiest way to defeat them is simply to mimic the drawing motion/grip of the holster (especially easy if the wearer is wearing his holster cross-draw, or a shoulder holster); alternatively a weakhand steal can be effected. There's not that many of them; and yes, people (thugs and non-thugs alike) have been known to train to defeat them. Including me. Just in case. You have to know which trick you are dealing with and have to be able to mimic that action as if you were the wearer. I first encountered one when my brother, a police officer showed one to me, From in front trying to get the weapon was impossible unless he simply stood still and let me. From behind it was slightly easier as it was closer to the natural drawing motion but you still need to know precisely what the trick is to get it to release.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:18:43 PM)
Level 2 are not as slow to draw, but easier yet to defeat. You are free to entrust your life to the idea that your assailant cannot take that weapon from you until you're knocked out (of course, if you're already the victim of a "ground and pound, that point is probably not too far off, n'est ce pas?). And I am free to entertain no such illusions.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 4:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That's not the law anywhere You and others insist that Zimmerman wasn't injured enough to justify self defense if I'm wrong you have been pushing a known false position. No. What we're saying is his injuries do not support his claim that Martin was bashing his head into the sidewalk so hard he felt an imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. To those of use who speak English you just agreed with me. Huh? Self defense requires a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Losing a fist fight does not rise to that level in general. Anyway isn't Zimmerman's story now that they were struggling over the gun and the bashing had stopped?

Page: << < prev 36 37 [38] 39 40 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875