Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Sanguinare]

IF a cop told you to do something/not to do something and you did it you would get arested in most cases.

If you stalk some one you can get an order put on you by the court saying it is illegal for you to go near them.(this would show to most that stalking is a form of confrontation).

So a man that did not do what a 911 dispacher told him to do then stalked a 17year old and then killing him should not go to jail. kind of out of place if you ask me.

So if that was true i big guy with tattoos can with a gun at his side stand between you and you car say give me your keys let you pull out your legal to have on you gun and the second he sees the gun shoot and kill you because he gets to stand his ground.

not saying that is not how the law works it could work that way i think it is stupid and if you live in the county go to town you can kill any one you think could be out to get you all you need to do is punch them in the face once and see if you get hit back.

[blib]

You are showing a complete lack of reasoning or understanding about basic things.

You can't shoot someone for sneezing. Who would ever think that would be defense for anything.

Diseases can kill just as a punch can kill, many people would be more scared of baceterias then of fights. Basiclly someone with bacteriaphobia might feel his/her life was in danger which would give them the right to kill.

[zerocarbs]

Yes but under this law Zimmerman might very well be innocent when he really shouldent be, no mather how you turn on it he put himself ina situation where someone died and he killed him.

The Stand Your Ground Law, which is what I assume you're referring to, is not a loop-hole for murder.

[blib]

The Stand Your Ground Law, which is what I assume you're referring to, is not a loop-hole for murder.

It seems it might have been it this time. How is it not?

[Droids]

This I agree with to some extent. My problem in this case is much more with the law then the case itself as I havent red up on the case at all I cant comment on it specificlly.

---------- Post added 2012-03-28 at 01:55 AM ----------



Yes but under this law Zimmerman might very well be innocent when he really shouldent be, no mather how you turn on it he put himself ina situation where someone died and he killed him.

---------- Post added 2012-03-28 at 01:57 AM ----------



My desire to make the isssue.. Save it, you were the one bringing woman into this disucssion and it have no relevanse. My answear was to the part of your question that was actually relevant to this discussion since Zimmerman is not a woman.

You do understand that women exist and they are also human beings with the exact same rights as men right?

If you can't say that Zimmerman should be able to use lethal force against someone who is on top of him physically assaulting him, then you can't say a woman has that right either.

Laws aren't gender specific. Either Men and Women have a right to defend themselves using lethal force against someone who is physically assaulting them, or neither of them do.

If you feel Zimmerman doesn't have the right to use lethal force, because he is man, than you must also believe that a woman being beaten savagely by a man, shouldn't have the right to use a firearm to defend herself.

If that is your stance, you should go tell your mom, that if she is ever alone and a man is savagely beating her that she should never ever use a firearm against him, and just take the beating, cause I am sure she won't sustain any life long injuries, and the man who is beating her has value in the world.

[Wells]

The Stand Your Ground Law, which is what I assume you're referring to, is not a loop-hole for murder.

No but it is a convenient shield for poor police work and law enforcement bias

[holyevil44]

Do you keep missing the parts where injuries sustained support his story? Or the witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman?

dude ??? he did not even go to the hospital . so no hospital + no report from injuries = no hurt shot a kid killed him and getting away whit it

[Droids]

IF a cop told you to do something/not to do something and you did it you would get arested in most cases.

If you stalk some one you can get an order put on you by the court saying it is illegal for you to go near them.(this would show to most that stalking is a form of confrontation).

So a man that did not do what a 911 dispacher told him to do then stalked a 17year old and then killing him should not go to jail. kind of out of place if you ask me.

So if that was true i big guy with tattoos can with a gun at his side stand between you and you car say give me your keys let you pull out your legal to have on you gun and the second he sees the gun shoot and kill you because he gets to stand his ground.

not saying that is not how the law works it could work that way i think it is stupid and if you live in the county go to town you can kill any one you think could be out to get you all you need to do is punch them in the face once and see if you get hit back.

911 operators are not cops, or law enforcement people. They just work the phones, they have no power or jurisdiction to direct people.

In order to be arrested for "stalking" you have to do a lot more than just follow a stranger around a public place for a few minutes.

[DuckieMage]

This I agree with to some extent. My problem in this case is much more with the law then the case itself as I haven't red up on the case at all I cant comment on it specifically.

I have a problem with alot of laws out there, but they are laws that have proven useful in the past. I have to trust my law system in this matter.

---------- Post added 2012-03-28 at 01:55 AM ----------



Yes but under this law Zimmerman might very well be innocent when he really shouldn't be, no matter how you turn on it he put himself in a situation where someone died and he killed him.

It happens. There are flaws. Criminals get away with crimes sometimes. Innocent people lose years of their lives sitting in a jail cell for something they didn't do. There is no perfect law, no perfect law system.
I gotta live with human error.

[blib]

You do understand that women exist and they are also human beings with the exact same rights as men right?

If you can't say that Zimmerman should be able to use lethal force against someone who is on top of him physically assaulting him, then you can't say a woman has that right either.

Laws aren't gender specific. Either Men and Women have a right to defend themselves using lethal force against someone who is physically assaulting them, or neither of them do.

If you feel Zimmerman doesn't have the right to use lethal force, because he is man, than you must also believe that a woman being beaten savagely by a man, shouldn't have the right to use a firearm to defend herself.

If that is your stance, you should go tell your mom, that if she is ever alone and a man is savagely beating her that she should never ever use a firearm against him, and just take the beating, cause I am sure she won't sustain any life long injuries, and the man who is beating her has value in the world.

Dont be such a drama queen. You asked me what i THINK, you didnt ask what the law was. Personally I have a much bigger problem with guys hitting woman then guys hitting guys and so yes I think there is a difference. This case have nothing to do with woman as much as you would like to try make it about woman. This is a guy shooting a kid dead.

[DuckieMage]

dude ??? he did not even go to the hospital . so no hospital + no report from injuries = no hurt shot a kid killed him and getting away whit it

According to authorities, Zimmerman then shot Martin at close range. When the local police arrived at the scene, they found Zimmerman with a bloody nose, swollen lip and lacerations in the back of his head. Although paramedics gave him first aid, he said he did not need to go to the hospital and sought medical treatment the next day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1381322.html
There ya go.
It's in a report somewhere.

[blib]

I have a problem with alot of laws out there, but they are laws that have proven useful in the past. I have to trust my law system in this matter.

It happens. There are flaws. Criminals get away with crimes sometimes. Innocent people lose years of their lives sitting in a jail cell for something they didn't do. There is no perfect law, no perfect law system.
I gotta live with human error.

But this law is not about human error, the law in itself is a error. In a country filled with guns and scared people it gives you the right to kill people that scares you, thats insane.

[Sanguinare]

If a man hit a chick knocking her to the ground saw her reach for a gun in her purse and stepped on her neck killing her before she could get the shot off should not be covered by that kind of law. but his life was clearly in danger he saw the gun so he has a right to kill the woman right.

[wtfmansrsly]

You do understand that women exist and they are also human beings with the exact same rights as men right?

Dude, the entire universe understands the comparison you're making, blib is just choosing to ignore it because your hypothetical situation isn't terribly relevant when the discussion is, or is trying to be, about the facts/events at hand.

[Maleficus]

Diseases can kill just as a punch can kill, many people would be more scared of baceterias then of fights. Basiclly someone with bacteriaphobia might feel his/her life was in danger which would give them the right to kill.

Basiclly someone with bacteriaphobia might feel his/her life was in danger which would give them the right to kill...

... bacteria.

Seriously though, at first i thought you were just distorting the law, but when i went to read it, it actually was only one sentence long: "If you're afraid, you can kill something."

I'm kind of amazed at the scope of this law, but hey, i guess there are stranger laws out there.

[Droids]

dude ??? he did not even go to the hospital . so no hospital + no report from injuries = no hurt shot a kid killed him and getting away whit it

You do understand that the moment that Zimmerman shot Trayvon that Trayvon was on top of him beating him, while Zimmerman called out for help for close to a minute, and at no time did Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman stop.

You don't have to receive injuries that require immediate medical attention before defending yourself, and when Zimmerman shot Trayvon, there was no way for him to know the extent of his own injuries.

People really need to think.

I blame the schools. They teach you what to think, not how to think.

[Paranoid Android]

If they punch you first and you're in one of these stand your own ground states then yes. Hell I would even argue in every state there is a case.

Brilliant deduction. Then again you are assuming Martin was first to punch. No witness saw the fight or how it started. Just Zimmerman yelling help. So again a man who shot someone dead vs ummmm....the dead person. Stop trying to make the story into how Zimmerman was fighting for his life or who started it.

[Droids]

If a man hit a chick knocking her to the ground saw her reach for a gun in her purse and stepped on her neck killing her before she could get the shot off should not be covered by that kind of law. but his life was clearly in danger he saw the gun so he has a right to kill the woman right.

Are you serious? That is your best take on the argument?

Some of you really need to study more.

[zerocarbs]

It seems it might have been it this time. How is it not?

First of all, I don't believe the law is even the issue here and I'll tell you why.

If I'm in possession of a legal weapon and someone is viciously attacking me then I have a right to use that weapon to defend myself. It's the same as if I were in a restaurant and someone came in to rob the restaurant with a gun. Then I could use my gun to shoot that person in the back to defend everyone else's safety. That's all covered under common law.

It's up to the police, attorneys, and grand jury to decide if he actually had a reason to defend himself with deadly force.

[DuckieMage]

If a man hit a chick knocking her to the ground saw her reach for a gun in her purse and stepped on her neck killing her before she could get the shot off should not be covered by that kind of law. but his life was clearly in danger he saw the gun so he has a right to kill the woman right.

No, I don't believe that would be a case of self-defense as he knocked her over and has no proof she was reaching for her gun.
If she was on the ground and he was standing above her, he had more chances of getting away or getting help.

This is twisting the law, please stop. These scenarios are getting more and more out of hand.
Zimmerman is being investigated over the incident. He is not getting away . There is an investigation going on.