NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: sparky0068 on July 13, 2013, 09:07:46 PM
-
Finally, the justice system working.
That is all.
-
Now waiting for the media fueled idiots that think its a race issue to do retarded things.
People are pissed about the economy, about politics, and other stuff... and now they have an excuse to do stupid **** even if it's based on b.s. :(.
-
The right verdict...having followed the trial rather closely and read the jury's instructions....either way, that poor bastard will be looking over his shoulder until the day he dies...
-
Ya'll should see the hate on social media- I guarantee not a one of them has actually followed the facts in the case, only the bias passed as fact by the media and interweb!
-
Ya'll should see the hate on social media- I guarantee not a one of them has actually followed the facts in the case, only the bias passed as fact by the media and interweb!
Yeah. Gonna go **** up whitey for ....
Wait. They still don't get that Zimmerman is Hispanic ? And this was never about race ?
*shakes head*
-
Ya'll should see the hate on social media- I guarantee not a one of them has actually followed the facts in the case, only the bias passed as fact by the media and interweb!
LOL, as soon as I saw the verdict I went to HuffPo and looked at the front page. They are frothing at the mouth over there. I suspect I will wake to news reports in the morning of rioting in many places.
Ron
-
NOT GUILTY*
*BUT NOT INNOCENT
Way to be an impartial journalistic resource, huffpo.
Seriously. I'm done reading anything coming out of the news media.
Main stream or alternative.
-
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst!! As usual, when a high profile case doesn't go the way the masses wanted it to go. And fully expect the DOJ to get into it as a civil rights case. I get very sick and tired of this double jeopardy type of crap for selected individuals!!
-
The only shred of "evidence" that people took away from the trail was how Zimmerman was a fierce MMA trained grown man athlete... other than that I just saw a post suggesting that GZ dragged the body back to the T to make it look like he got jumped... on what earth are these folks living on?
Next up is GZ's civil suit against NBC for very obvious reasons.
Followed up by a very probable civil suit against GZ for the Martin family.
-
And fully expect the DOJ to get into it as a civil rights case.
If they do, it'll be a laughing stock. There's nothing anywhere out of Zimmerman that shows any kind of racial b.s.. If there was - it woulda been on display in this trial.
Oh, unless you look at the lies the media spread, then sure there is.
-
The only shred of "evidence" that people took away from the trail was how Zimmerman was a fierce MMA trained grown man athlete... other than that I just saw a post suggesting that GZ dragged the body back to the T to make it look like he got jumped... on what earth are these folks living on?
The evidence was in court, since the prosecution didn't have much - folks are making up their own as they go... attempting to be their own investigative armchair commando. When someone wants something so bad, they'll reach for anything (not limited to this case/situation).
Next up is GZ's civil suit against NBC for very obvious reasons.
This needs to happen. This must happen. NBC's editing of the call is pure libel.
The AP, CBS, ABC, CNN, the NYT are all also deserving of civil action.
Followed up by a very probable civil suit against GZ for the Martin family.
From a personal view point this is not that unreasonable. Did Z need to aggressively confront M... escalating the situation etc.. blah blah blah. i dunno, i see it as reasonable questions for a civil suit.
-
I have no idea if this 'routine' for the area in question... but... alas:
https://twitter.com/search?q=55th%20st&src=typd
edit: a friend who lives in the area says 55th/7th is a bad area of town heh.
-
Followed up by a very probable civil suit against GZ for the Martin family.
Anyone know if Florida's "stand your ground" law would allow a civil suit? If so, it was a bad law in the first place.
-
Anyone know if Florida's "stand your ground" law would allow a civil suit? If so, it was a bad law in the first place.
The Stand Your Ground law was totally irrelevant to this case. It only applies where a defender had the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. There is no opportunity to retreat when you are pinned to the ground and having your head bashed into concrete.
-
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst!! As usual, when a high profile case doesn't go the way the masses wanted it to go.
I think the masses of people in this country that find this verdict so wrong are really small vocal mobs that are being manipulated by the media to appear as a majority.
In fact, there is as much evidence that there was a miscarriage of justice as there was to convict GZ(none) and the "mobs" are a media driven wet dream that exist only on TV news
-
The Stand Your Ground law was totally irrelevant to this case. It only applies where a defender had the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. There is no opportunity to retreat when you are pinned to the ground and having your head bashed into concrete.
Understood. I guess I'm not using the right term -- a more direction question: Does FL have any protection against civil suits for those that have to employ lethal force in a self-defense situation?
I guess I was thinking "stand your ground" doctrine usually included this type of protection. Perhaps I'm confused with "castle doctrine" which also wouldn't apply -- this is why IANAL :)
-
This is what happens when a neighborhood watch, cop wannabe on a dark, rainy night clashes with a pot smoking, convict wannabe thug.
Race had nothing to do with it. That was interjected by the media. The only racist I saw in the case was Trayvon Martin when he jumped the "crazy ass cracker" and tried to beat him to death.
-
This was a more of a Witch Hunt right from the start then anything else.
It was more about Gun control then race from the get go
It was just what the administration was looking for at the time.....that is until Sandy hook happened!. :o
Then the DOJ just kinda forgot and distanced it's self from this one.
Martin and Zimmerman both made bad mistake's in judgement and someone lost their live over it the DoJ just stepped in to made it worse compounding and adding to those stupid mistakes
-
I think the masses of people in this country that find this verdict so wrong are really small vocal mobs that are being manipulated by the media to appear as a majority.
In fact, there is as much evidence that there was a miscarriage of justice as there was to convict GZ(none) and the "mobs" are a media driven wet dream that exist only on TV news
I would agree on both points. As to the first point, the "Community Relations Service" of the DOJ sent teams to Stanford, Florida, but not to smooth community relations. By the descriptions in their own reimbursement invoices they recruited, trained and assisted in "demonstrations" and "protests", there and at several other places. Earlier, they had aided the "Occupy" movement to harass people at the Republican Convention. There is even a photo showing a CRS agent "high five-ing" an Occupy protester during their "protest". What is happening beyond a shadow of a doubt is our own Federal government employees aiding and abetting Marxist in their attempts to replace Rule Of Law under the Constitution with something the UN advocates.
When NBC edited the 911 call and introduced race, followed by CBS, they were called out on the fact that Zimmerman was Hispanic. To keep the same spin (which promoted hatred for Whites and self-loathing) they introduced a new ethnic group in this country, "White Hispanics".
The trial revealed several facts. The first and foremost, IMO, was an attack on the 2nd Amendment by characterizing the "Stand Your Ground" law as nothing more than giving thugs a license to kill, and not about self-defense at all. Secondly, the media continually posted side by side pictures of Martin as a pre-teenager to give him an angelic innocence look, while right next to Martin's photo was a doctored photo of Zimmerman, made to look much older and hardcore.
At the insistence of the Federal government state prosecutors intervened and tossed out the Stanford police department ruling of self-defense and filed 2nd Degree murder charges. Florida law defines 2nd Degree Murder as:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)
The (1)unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and (2)evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although (3)without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life
I never understood how a sentence could "not exceed life" unless they proposed to allow the body to rot in the cell after death. But, there are three elements that the State had to prove against Zimmerman:
(1) the killing was unlawful -- the self-defense law eliminated that
(2) Zimmerman "evinced" a depraved mind -- the prosecutors couldn't demonstrate that
(3) the shooting was not premeditated -- they knew they couldn't prove premeditation by virtue of the fact that they filed 2nd DM charges. If they could have proved premeditation then they would have went for 1st DM and the death penalty.
The prosecution's own witnesses were better witnesses for the defense than the prosecution. This became painfully clear as the prosecution completed presentation of its case before the jury. So sure were they of that fact that they had NOT proved 2nd DM that they introduced a new charge of 3rd DM, specifically 782.04-4h: "Aggravated child abuse". This charge was totally absurd and demonstrated how the prosecution was grabbing at straws. Martin was 17.5 years old when he was shot while doing a pretty good job of "grounding and pounding" Zimmerman. Interestingly, that term was first coined by Mark "The Hammer" Coleman during a pre-fight interview at the UFC. The prosecution tried to convince the jury that Zimmerman was the highly trained and deadly MMA fighter, yet Martin was the one using the tactic.
Also obvious in the case was the bias of the judge against Zimmerman and his defense team. The 5th Amendment guarantees that one cannot be forced to testify against himself. Lawyers are hired specifically to represent the accused and present his defense in court. Overruling defense attorneys objections while bypassing them and demanding that Zimmerman directly answer her questions destroys the 5th. From my POV it was an attempt to intimidate Zimmerman into testifying, thus giving the prosecution an opportunity to destroy him. I've seen skilful attorneys in action in court. Under the current rules and court procedures a good one could convince a jury that Jesus Christ himself would be a person that no responsible parent would allow a child to come near.
With the criminal trial over, the next charade will be the civil case by Martin's parents, and the civil rights trial by the Feds, thus destroying the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy ... which really has been dead for a long time. Civil court cases have much lower standards and the likelihood is that he will lose that one, making him a pauper for the rest of his life. The Feds will stack the court against him in the civil rights case, and he will mostly likely loose, unless the Hispanic community begins to make a huge fuss about equal or social justice. One thing for sure, they will have to coach Martin's girlfriend or get a whole new set of "witnesses".
-
Civil case appears unlikely to get much traction: http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/civil-case-against-zimmerman-in-florida-has-little-chance-of (http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/civil-case-against-zimmerman-in-florida-has-little-chance-of)
-
http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2011/12/lose-criminal-case-but-win-civil-trial.html (http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2011/12/lose-criminal-case-but-win-civil-trial.html)
Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. In his civil trial, he was found liable for their wrongful death.
So what exactly is the difference between a civil suit and a criminal suit?
Criminal cases are tried by prosecutors and the state. By their nature, criminal cases are considered offenses against the state or society as a whole. Civil cases, on the other hand, are not.
The burden of proof is usually different. Crimes typically need to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil charges usually require a lower burden of proof.
Juries are typically required in criminal cases. Many civil cases will be adjudicated only by a judge, not a jury.
There is no right to an attorney in a civil case. Defendants sued in civil cases typically need to provide an attorney themselves. In criminal cases, the state will provide an attorney if the defendant cannot afford one.
A civil suit, filed under a judge with the same mindset and bias as Zimmerman's judge, would most likely rule against him regardless of the evidence.
-
The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty. I suspect they thought he might be guilty but the evidence was too weak and inconsistent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman's legal ordeal may not be over. The feds may try to make a civil rights case. Some commentators have predicted that would fail, too, for the same reasons the criminal prosecution failed.
In some states with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws, failure to secure a criminal conviction means immunity from civil action. I don't know if Florida is one of them.
People who go armed legally are advised not to look for trouble. Participation in a neighborhood watch program means prowling the streets late at night looking for suspicious activity to report. The bad guys will not appreciate this and may express their resentment physically. If Zimmerman's story is the truth, that's what happened to him. This is a lose-lose situation. Win the fight and you face a criminal trial. Lose and you go to the hospital or the morgue.
Several months ago, a guy on The High Road described following a prowler through his neighborhood. He stayed in his car with the doors locked and windows up and never got within a block of the prowler. That meant he was pretty safe and, to get to him, the prowler would have had to leave physical evidence. By getting out of his car, Zimmerman put himself in an ambiguous situation where there was no clear cut proof he was telling the truth.
-
I will buy coffee for the whole group if the DOJ "DOES NOT" go after Zimmerman for a Civil Rights Violation. I feel that confident that they will.
-
The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty.
What is that supposed to mean? No jury has ever found any defendant "innocent" because they do not have the power to do so.
-
To keep the same spin (which promoted hatred for Whites and self-loathing) they introduced a new ethnic group in this country, "White Hispanics". Quoted from GreyGeek.
Does this mean Obama is a "White Negro" since he is half caucasian?
Greg58
-
No jury has ever found any defendant "innocent" because they do not have the power to do so.
I should have included a sentence saying that there is no such verdict as "innocent". The point I wanted to make was that we can't know whether the jury believed Zimmerman or just found the evidence insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Given the weakness of both sides' cases, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.
-
Looking across news headlines ... it looks like folks are still thinking this was a racial thing.
I wish people weren't so ****ing stupid :(.
Good news on that front to a degree:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/14/zimmerman-lawyer-to-move-asap-against-nbc-news/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/14/zimmerman-lawyer-to-move-asap-against-nbc-news/)
Lawsuit against NBC is continuing.
-
I should have included a sentence saying that there is no such verdict as "innocent". The point I wanted to make was that we can't know whether the jury believed Zimmerman or just found the evidence insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Given the weakness of both sides' cases, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.
Well, if they followed the judge's instructions, they had to believe that Zimmerman's story justifying deadly force in self-defense was more likely than not to be true.
Since Zimmerman clearly killed Martin, the question was whether or not Zimmerman was privileged to do so. The defense theory was that he was privileged to do so because he was acting in self-defense.
Although the state generally bears the evidentiary burden to establish the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense is an "affirmative defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense)" that must be established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.
-
CitizenClark, normally I would agree with your post, but that is not the way they played this case. George did not plead justification under self defense (the affirmative defense) he plead not guilty. So now the State had to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that it may have been self defense could be a reason to doubt his guilt.
As many Lawyers have said this was a very weird case. The verdict is simply "Not Guilty" there was no option for "Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense" even though self defense issues were raised which required the court to include the jury instructions for them. Does a "Not Guilty" verdict carry more meaning in the Civil Suits that are being filed than a "Self Defense" verdict would, I don't know and have trouble understanding the way either side fought this case.
-
I wish people weren't so ****ing stupid
That right there would solve many of the worlds problems
-
The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent.
They didn't have to. Until things change for the worse, a person IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the politically correct court of "public" opinion just the opposite is true.
Their verdict was not guilty. I suspect they thought he might be guilty but the evidence was too weak and inconsistent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
mmm... I suspect they thought the charge was absurd and politically motivated. We both have equal proof.
Zimmerman's legal ordeal may not be over. The feds may try to make a civil rights case. Some commentators have predicted that would fail, too, for the same reasons the criminal prosecution failed.
And for the fact that the FBI investigation already established that Zimmerman, an Hispanic, had no history or evidence of racist actions or speech that would lead one to believe the shooting was racially motivated. Racial fury was incited by NBC when they edited the 911 tape to put the words "fu**ing coon" in Zimmerman's mouth and refereed to him as "White". When they were reminded that Zimmerman was Hispanic, the media created a new racial category, "White Hispanic". The media role in this fiasco was as bad as I've ever seen it.
In some states with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws, failure to secure a criminal conviction means immunity from civil action. I don't know if Florida is one of them.
25 states have "Stand your ground" laws, 18 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 6 states (including Nebraska) have weak or no Castle laws.
Both the Stand Your Ground and Castle laws have provisions which prohibit civil lawsuits against those, IF charged, who are found innocent by reason of these laws. These laws do not prevent a person not part of the conflict who was wounded by the gun fire from filing a civil suit against the shooter.
People who go armed legally are advised not to look for trouble. Participation in a neighbourhood watch program means prowling the streets late at night looking for suspicious activity to report. The bad guys will not appreciate this and may express their resentment physically. If Zimmerman's story is the truth, that's what happened to him. This is a lose-lose situation. Win the fight and you face a criminal trial. Lose and you go to the hospital or the morgue.
For sure!
A concealed carry license is not a permit to play cop, even if you see a crime being committed while carrying. My wife and I were part of our neighbourhood watch program and we didn't "prowl around" at all. We had a large sign on our front window, easily visible from the street. Our house was also designated as a safe house were children were to come to if they were threatened and too far from home. We harboured two children in 25 years. If we saw suspicious activity from our windows we called the police. I never considered using my only weapon, a .22 Ruger Mark I.
.... By getting out of his car, Zimmerman put himself in an ambiguous situation where there was no clear cut proof he was telling the truth.
He sure did. Martin probably thought he was strong and aggressive enough to "pound and ground" Zimmerman. He sure was. Zimmerman thought his concealed carry weapon made him safe from physical threats. It didn't, but it stopped Martin before Martin's rain of blows was able to do more than break Zimmerman's nose, smash his lips and put cuts and contusions on the back of his head. Everyone in Lincoln knows about the two men who were beat to death in the last month. Zimmerman could have used his weapon like a club, but that could result in being disarmed and having the weapon used against you.
So, according to Florida law, Martin's relatives cannot sue in civil court. The state prosecutors probably already told them that, which may be why they made no statement and said they had no plans for a civil suit. The FBI's civil rights lawsuit is out, unless they can convince a judge of some wired twist in that law which would circumvent their own report.
Zimmerman has one big worry. The crazies who want "justice" and/or fame and plan to try and kill him. They already know he is armed, so it will be a sneak attack. His choices? Hide in some out of the way rural area, get plastic surgery and and name change, and hope to keep the new identity secret. Move to another country.
-
25 states have "Stand your ground" laws, 18 states have Castle Doctrine laws and 6 states (including Nebraska) have weak or no Castle laws.
Both the Stand Your Ground and Castle laws have provisions which prohibit civil lawsuits against those, IF charged, who are found innocent by reason of these laws. These laws do not prevent a person not part of the conflict who was wounded by the gun fire from filing a civil suit against the shooter.
Grey Greek, while not disagreeing with your meaning I need to throw a correction out here.
"Stand Your Ground," "Castle Doctrine," and "Civil Liability Protections" are three separate and distinct items, and the confusion around this and the language people use keeps us from getting improvements made to Nebraska's self defense laws.
1. "Castle Doctrine" This is simply that you have no duty to retreat in hour home, IE. your home is your castle. In the late 1960's a craze went across the country rewriting self defense laws, many Southern Sates ended up with a provision that required you to retreat from and attacker in your home, Castle Doctrine simply removes that from the self defense statute. Nebraska has never had a duty to retreat from your home, there by we have the "Castle Doctrine."
2. "Stand Your Ground" Florida was the first state to pass SYG legislation, but not the first state to have it. Until the craze of changing self defense laws in the late '60's everywhere in the country had SYG. There are multiple Supreme Court decisions that uphold this right and several states never changed their self defense laws, there by doing away with the original SYG (the Constitution); among those are states like Washington and believe it or not California. This is something we have been pushing for here in Nebraska, and because of the black marks the press has given the term SYG we have tried to relabel it the "Victim Protection Act" and include civil protections. The fact that so many people write to their Senator and ask for "Castle Doctrine" is part of the reason we fail to get this passed, those opposed to this legislation simply need to point out that we already have the "Castle Doctrine" (no retreat in the home) and the bill ends up dying.
3. "Civil Liability Protections" This is the third generation item to be added to changes in Self Defense Law in recent years. If you look at the states that have enacted changes the first wave was "Castle Doctrine," then came the hybrid "Castle Doctrine With Stand Your Ground" and some of the states that enacted the Castle Doctrine came back and added SYG, now the same things are happening with Civil Liability Protections. We got a small piece of this a couple of years ago, and those of us on the Board at that time are still not happy with what and how things went down. Do we need to do more, yes, but we are a little ways off from being able to bring this issue back up in the Legislature.
Language matters, especially when dealing with the Legislature, if you use a term that a Senator can claim means something different than what you meant you have lost the battle. That is why I keep telling people to quit asking for the Castle Doctrine. Nebraska has it already and always has. Until we can get everyone using terminology that the Legislature can't twist to a different meaning we will not win these battles.
-
Thank you Andy. Precise language is important, as is spelling and punctuation. I appreciate the education.
-
Thank you Andy. Precise language is important, as is spelling and punctuation. I appreciate the education.
And this is why I try to get as many people to read important items from me as possible, because my spelling etc. sucks (I blame my poor typing skills).
-
There is another part that some folks include in discussing the "Castle Doctrine" that I did not list here: if attacked, it’s reasonable for the defender to believe their life is at risk (Presumption of Reasonable Fear). This gets into another discussion on whither the "reasonable man" or the "victim's" view is important in determining if self defense is justified. This is another issue that has been run ragged but basically Nebraska statute says what the person performing self defense feels is the guiding fact, where as the Nebraska Supreme Court in its jury instructions uses the: What would a reasonable man think in the same situation? Where as our law has the higher standard (better for us), how it is applied is not exactly the same. We have had some wording changes for this brought up, and the NRA always messes this up for us by going in another direction. One of these days we will have to go after this again as well.
-
CitizenClark, normally I would agree with your post, but that is not the way they played this case. George did not plead justification under self defense (the affirmative defense) he plead not guilty.
Zimmerman's defense attorneys asserted that he acted in self-defense throughout the trial.
So now the State had to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that it may have been self defense could be a reason to doubt his guilt.
I'm not a Florida lawyer, and my not being familiar with Florida law caused some confusion here. It seems that the way self-defense works in Florida criminal law has changed dramatically over recent years. What I described above is the way that self-defense works as an affirmative defense in most states. Apparently, Florida and Indiana (and maybe some others) actually provide in their criminal statutes that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense (cf. the usual rule, that the affirmative defense of self-defense requires that the defendant persuade a jury that the preponderance of the evidence support the claim of self-defense). In other words, as I understand it from my cursory research, self-defense no longer operates as an affirmative defense in criminal court in Florida.
Thus, I was incorrect when I said that Zimmerman must have in the eyes of the jurors proved by a preponderance that he acted in self-defense, and I was further incorrect in saying that this was therefore essentially the same sort of showing that he would need to make in a civil trial to beat a tort claim.
Mea culpa.
As many Lawyers have said this was a very weird case. The verdict is simply "Not Guilty" there was no option for "Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense" even though self defense issues were raised which required the court to include the jury instructions for them. Does a "Not Guilty" verdict carry more meaning in the Civil Suits that are being filed than a "Self Defense" verdict would, I don't know and have trouble understanding the way either side fought this case.
Well, given these relatively new developments in criminal procedure as to who bears the burden in a case where self-defense is at issue, (what I know of) the defense strategy makes sense.
-
The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty.
Are you from Florida by chance…maybe the Tampa area? That phrase is very similar to a phrase the state attorney uttered during the trial earlier this year of a radio personality I have listened to every day since he started on Sirius years back.
-
The not guilty and not innocent phrase has been popular last few days. It's a way of expressing annoyance with the outcome - or as a way to simply disagree with it in a way that sounds trendy (and retarded when done this way... If you think he's guilty then this phrase is assinine).
The best proper use of it is that although found not guilty by court - there's innocence lost in the taking of a life. Using it this way typically has a religious connotation.
-
The jury did not find Zimmerman to be innocent. Their verdict was not guilty
The Constitution says "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Since he was found "not guilty" which means "not proven guilty", he is innocent. I go by what the Constitutions says, even though it is not politically correct anymore.
-
As excellent as this is...
All this trial was was exactly as it appears: an attempt to try and condemn weapon owners (specifically firearms) and try to say that such laws as stand your ground and castle doctrine are some how bad. They were trying to build a precedent to make self-defense illegal and increase dependence on government.
The media and the liberal freaks need to get a clue and remember: "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the state (even though the laws say the burden of proof changes when self-defense is claimed, that is false and a way to try and back door convict people, not to mention the violation of rights in doing so. If someone is forced to prove their innocents, they are being forced to testify against themselves as well as possibly provide evidence that could convict them...both being a violation of a person's rights and the Constitution).
And being that he was innocent and they found him not guilty, he is completely innocent and should be immune to any and all civil lawsuits by the family or others. The family should have no ability to sue, they have no involvement, their kid committed the crime, they need to deal with that and not punish the innocent.
We really need to get back to everything being based on individuals, scrap this social crap.
Good thing the stand your ground law states that if civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense. But it should not even be an option to be sued in civil court as he was proven innocent, criminal court trumps civil court.
-
Are you from Florida by chance…maybe the Tampa area?
No, I live in Omaha. On the whole, I am relieved that Zimmerman was acquitted. The prosecution wanted the jury to jump to a conclusion for which there was not adequate evidence and the jury refused to go along.
All we really know about that night is that Martin and Zimmerman got into a fight which ended in Martin's death. Witness testimony and physical evidence cover details of the fight. They don't cover how it started and that is crucial to determining who was the aggressor and who was the defender. Had Zimmerman not been armed, he very likely would have died. Then it would have been Martin on trial and being acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
I am inclined to believe Zimmerman's story. It sounds like what a well meaning, but rather inept, person would do when concerned about the safety of his neighborhood. But I sure can't prove it by the available evidence.
-
Not being a lawyer, AAllen, I haven't divined the depths of those three terms, but perhaps Wikipedia could use an edit or two? I agree with your assertion that the definitions of words mean something. Much of the conflict in this country is because groups have their own special meaning of basic words ... to the extent that they become code words that mean something entirely different. Simple words, like "is", or "peace" etc...
Meanwhile, here are some facts about Florida and "justifiable homicide".
Database: Justifiable homicides in Florida
http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php?orderby=aOffenderRace&ctrl=1&ctrl=1 (http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php?orderby=aOffenderRace&ctrl=1&ctrl=1)
"The number of justifiable homicides committed by police and civilians in Florida rose dramatically in 2005. after the state's Stand Your Ground law was enacted. The law allows a civilian who feels threatened to use deadly force without attempting to flee."
The database holds data from 2000 to 2010. For that period there are 652 records. They show that over those eleven years, of the 583 Blacks killed, 129 Blacks were killed by Whites. The remainder were killed by Police, Blacks or other ethnic groups. Twenty Whites were killed by Blacks. The worst year was 2009, when 105 people were killed. Of those, 20 Blacks were killed by Whites, 8 Whites were killed by Blacks, and 19 Blacks were killed by other Blacks.
As the graph in the article shows, there was more than a two-fold rise in deaths after the passage of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
The FBI recorded 261 "Justifiable Homicides" in 2009:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html
(http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html)
Ten months ago a Black woman shot a White man over a minor accident. She said she felt threatened when he approached her car and pounded on her window while shouting, and shot one time through the window, striking him in the chest. Another person standing 15 feet away said he didn't hear any shouting and took notice of the incident when he heard the gun shot.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/ABTQXCNTFM32/73128-Black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man#.UePmIOHohYA (http://www.speroforum.com/a/ABTQXCNTFM32/73128-Black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man#.UePmIOHohYA)
She was charged six months later, after a grand jury indicted her:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woman-who-says-she-shot-man-in-self-defense-after-fender-bender-now-faces-charges-191919771.html (http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woman-who-says-she-shot-man-in-self-defense-after-fender-bender-now-faces-charges-191919771.html)
"Kyle Aucoin said no evidence exists that his son touched Scott's car after the minor traffic accident.
"Jonathan had his hands up. He was backing away, but she wouldn't let it go," Aucoin said after the indictment against Scott was returned.
"She was determined that she was going to kill him," Aucoin said.."
Deputies at the time of the shooting said Scott had a concealed handgun license for the weapon used. The grand jury essentially decided that that alone isn’t enough to call the shooting self defense.
“In this town, this county and this state, a concealed handgun license is not a license to kill,” said Attorney Brian Wice.
Of course, there are other interpretation of the events. The most radical is one by a Marxist group demanding her immediate release:
http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=free-crystal-scott-defend-and-protect-the-african-woman
(http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=free-crystal-scott-defend-and-protect-the-african-woman)
Crystal Scott was charged with murder. So far, the case has only been covered by local news outlets. The major media, including Fox News, is silent.
Eight months later a petition was circulated demanding justice:
https://www.change.org/petitions/houston-police-department-and-the-texas-state-attorney-s-office-immediately-arrest-crystal-scott-with-murder-in-the-death-of-jonathan-ables (https://www.change.org/petitions/houston-police-department-and-the-texas-state-attorney-s-office-immediately-arrest-crystal-scott-with-murder-in-the-death-of-jonathan-ables)
-
GreyGeek, there is no personal direction with the definition thing. I keep pointing it out because every time we go to the legislature to try to make improvements to our self defense laws everyone keeps writing their Senators asking for the "Castle Doctrine" and since we already have it our bills go nowhere.
Since you are doing some research on Justifiable Homicides in Florida, could you also take a look at the violent crimes and general Homicides for the same time period. If I remember correctly the overall violent crime rate had gone up by an even larger percentage than had the Justifiable Homicide numbers, and the overall Homicide numbers had gone up roughly the same (slightly more) as the Justifiable numbers, and the area where the Justifiable numbers jumped for the most part were police shootings. This could be considered normal since the police were interacting with a more violent criminal than they had in the past, it is their job to make contact with criminals.
My memory of stats may be wrong, it was something I was looking into about a year ago and never got the time to complete my research, so the article I was going to write died due to lack of time.
-
So, I wake up, read today's headlines.
I weep for my country.
-
It might seem a little harsh to accuse Trayvons parents of bad parenting, yet it's seems more Logical then blaming the state of Florida, guns or racism.
This kid clearly had a propensity for violence and illegal drugs. Time and time again I've seen kids get into illegal drugs and finance their habit with breaking and enterings and robberies. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if he wasn't part of the crime problem in the neighborhood.
I had a cousin that was my age, who had a bright future ahead of him,
who ruined his life doing the same thing, drugs and break-ins.
I find it hard to believe that Trayvon's parents couldn't see their son was heading in a downward spiral.
-
everyone keeps writing their Senators asking for the "Castle Doctrine" and since we already have it our bills go nowhere.
Is there a specific section of the Nebraska code which one could label as the "Castle Law", or is the doctrine assumed based on other laws? And if so, which ones? I ask because several sources say that Nebraska is one of six states that do NOT have a Castle Doctrine law.
Since you are doing some research on Justifiable Homicides in Florida, could you also take a look at the violent crimes and general Homicides for the same time period.
I'll do that.
-
Does this mean Obama is a "White Negro" "White African American" since he is half caucasian?
The word "Negro" which is nearly as insulting as "Ni**er" is not a logical substitution for either of the two descriptive words used for George Zimmerman. Neither "White" nor "Hispanic" are considered insults.
While I agree that this is a ridiculous use of words by liberals to make this a race issue, may I suggest that our organization is not one for white gun owners only? We as a group don't want to push away other ethnicities. Having them join our ranks and understanding of the 2A would greatly help our fight.
Fly
-
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9673.msg67937.html#msg67937 (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9673.msg67937.html#msg67937)
-
The word "Negro" which is nearly as insulting as "Ni**er" is not a logical substitution for either of the two descriptive words used for George Zimmerman. Neither "White" nor "Hispanic" are considered insults.
While I agree that this is a ridiculous use of words by liberals to make this a race issue, may I suggest that our organization is not one for white gun owners only? We as a group don't want to push away other ethnicities. Having them join our ranks and understanding of the 2A would greatly help our fight.
Fly
While the United Negro Collage Fund uses that term, and the NAACP uses the term "colored", and those terms were terms of respect in times past in the White culture, James Brown, with one of his songs, started the "Black is beautiful" movement to inspire Black pride during the turbulent times of the 60's and 70's.
A complete history of the term "Negro" is given here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3jPFh_vj3GAC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=why+the+term+%22negro%22+is+offensive&source=web&ots=8w1Owy8I1a&sig=kPzPVwRpjJW5fr_QC9cwK5bmpg8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=why%20the%20term%20%22negro%22%20is%20offensive&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=3jPFh_vj3GAC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=why+the+term+%22negro%22+is+offensive&source=web&ots=8w1Owy8I1a&sig=kPzPVwRpjJW5fr_QC9cwK5bmpg8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=why%20the%20term%20%22negro%22%20is%20offensive&f=false)
Read that and you'll understand how the term arose and why it is offensive.
My mother's side of the family is from the South and a LOT of southerners have some amount of Black DNA, even if they look White. There is a suggestion that some of her ancestors were from the Seminole Indian tribe.
So, if the NFOA were a White's Only club I wouldn't be here.
-
All interesting GreyGeek. Language is a funny thing. What is acceptable today, is taboo tomorrow regardless of the users intent. Flight attendants used to be proud to be called a stewardess. Now you are likely to be accosted (at least verbally) if you use that term. Furthermore, it always seems to be the oppressed or those at the bottom of the totem pole that seek new titles to feel better. All the while doctors remain "doctors" and pilots stay "pilots".
Regardless of the history of the word "negro" and whether it was acceptable at one time, I dare anyone to go around referring to blacks as "negros". That may work out just fine in an isolated all white small town, but in a bigger city will likely result in the next Zimmerman-esque case for us to follow.
So, if the NFOA were a White's Only club I wouldn't be here.
Agreed. My statement stands. If it is currently considered offensive to a group, then we are hurting our cause by using it. Just my opinion.
Fly
-
Is there a specific section of the Nebraska code which one could label as the "Castle Law", or is the doctrine assumed based on other laws? And if so, which ones? I ask because several sources say that Nebraska is one of six states that do NOT have a Castle Doctrine law.
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-1409 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=s2814009000):
(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:
(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape shall not be obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.
...
(5) Except as required by subsections (3) and (4) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.
-
LAPD fights back against violent protesters:
http://www.policeone.com/news/6325432-LAPD-fights-back-against-violent-protesters/?source=newsletter&nlid=6325447 (http://www.policeone.com/news/6325432-LAPD-fights-back-against-violent-protesters/?source=newsletter&nlid=6325447)
I was reading the member's comments following this article. I'm not sure if anyone not subscribed to PoliceOne.com can view
the posts, but I would like to share this posting of: civ.mil cop in mo:
"I am an American and a Police Officer who just happens have been born with Black Skin and I have to say that I am sick of Rev. Al, Rev. Jesse and all of the rest of the so called Black Leaders who claim to speak for all of us.
These folks pick and choose the matters that they Protest and get people fired up about. What happened to Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmeran was tragic and there were NO WINNERS!
Now having grown up in and worked in a large Urban Area I have seen the ever increasing Murders and Violence through the decades, My one question is when will Black America wake up, stop being sheep and tell these talking heads to either start protesting the REAL problem which are the Gang Bangers, Drug Dealers and the types who take over areas and make the Good People either live in fear or move to an area that they really cannot afford to live in or SHUT THE HELL UP, MOVE OVER and MAKE WAY for the Real Leaders who want progress!
And one last thing I REALLY hate the term African American, I was born and raised right here in the United States of America and that makes me an AMERICAN who's Great Grand Parents were born Slaves but died free and passed down the Ethics of Hard Work, Hand Up NOT Handouts and Respect is earned not given plain and simple and ANYBODY who doesn't like it can KISS MY GRITS!
Stay Safe Strong and Always Trust The God You Serve!!!!!!!!!"[/font]
-
Looking across twitter and stuff, I see plenty of folks talking about 'being better than this' regarding those that are supporting the riots etc.
They don't address the fact that media and talking heads have been feeding them b.s., but it's still nice to see folks shaking their heads ... even if in a semi-arrogant way. A step in the right direction is a step none the less.
-
Bringing Up Some Issues Regarding The Socioethnic Double-Standard Here........
I dare anyone to go around referring to blacks as "negros.
Two Related Cases in Point:
United Negro College Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Both of these organizations freely use proscribed appellations for members of their constituencies. However, others---as said above---cannot.
At least they cannot without the Race Baiters, Race Mongers, Race Shills, and their Media Hounds baying hotly on the trail in pursuit.
Some might call this set of circumstances a Double Standard. In a land where equality is the Golden Rule.
Go Figger.
sfg
-
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be
Those two clauses put severe restrictions on the use of concealed weapons for personal defense and almost forbids their use to defend yourself at work and in public places.[/b]
How can one know that a retreat can be done "with complete safety" until after the retreat is done? What if, while retreating, the bad guy decides he doesn't like what you are doing and shoots you? Not being able to shoot until you are shot at, or shot, defeats the purpose of a CHP and demands you play Russian Roulette with him, but he gets the first shot. Say you, fearful he might shoot if you retreat, shoot at him first? At your trial the prosecutor will claim you didn't try to retreat, or retreat far enough. How do you prove otherwise?
Secondly, part (b) also requires the concealed carrier to give up anything and everything the bad guy asks for and, on top of that, if the bad guy demands that you hand over any concealed weapon or do some other action that would be disadvantageous to you and you refuse you have broken the law. IOW, the law seems to give the bad guy all the rights and the victim no chance at protecting his property or person, i.e. self-defense ... except ...
Part (i) when you are at home and your home is invaded. (I guess that is the "Castle Doctrine" part.) At work you don't have to retreat, PROVIDED that the bad guy doesn't work there also. If he does you can't defend yourself. What if you didn't know that he worked there and you use your weapon to defend yourself? Russian roulette again. More than likely you'll be prosecuted. It's like the legislature is favoring the bad guy. It will be especially bad if the prosecutor is like those in the Sanford, FL case -- zealous anti-2A types.
Now, personally, I wouldn't consider defending someone else when they have had the same opportunity to gain a CHP that I have and have chosen not to. And, I wouldn't consider using my CHP to protect a vendor's property by shooting at even an armed robber, if he wasn't threatening me. Insurance can replace property, not lives. But, why carry concealed when the law requires that you must give to the thug the personal possessions or yours that he demands? To the thug, what's his is his, and what yours is his also. The legislature seems to agree.
I'll be blunt. The people who wrote that law live in Ivory Towers and have NEVER been robbed, raped or murdered, nor have they had loved ones robbed, raped or murdered. If they had, they wouldn't have loaded the deck to favor the thieving and life of the thug.
This puts a new light on the "Stand Your Ground" Law. It's time Nebraska had that law.
-
with complete safety by retreating
If you can't retreat with complete safety (ie: getting out of the door requires going across the barrel of a gun)...
surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto
Vaguely written, yeah. Good intention of 'things arent worth someones life', but erf. I'm not sure legal definition of thievery vs 'claim of right' ... cause.. your pointing out of "gimme your gun" is cute.
complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take
Defending yourself or your family is a duty IMHO. Dunno legal opinion of that though.
initial aggressor
Don't pick the fight, easy enough.
or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be
Gotta take this in it's full reading IMHO. The opening of (i) relates to retreating with no periods or semicolons, etc. Thus, this is "you still should attempt to safely retreat if a coworker is acting dangerously".
edit: my point is, it's not as bleak as you make it out to be ;). They're generally trying to work around vigilante problems. And if ya show that it was an immediate life threatening situation you'll probably be okay. As an example: handing your carry weapon over would easily be considered putting yourself in danger heh.
-
This is the section of the code that I was looking at and wondering about:
"The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety" by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take...
How do you know that you can avoid a situation with complete safety if an attacker is pointing a gun at you or your family member? Are you suppose to take his or her word on it? So if they say, "give me your money!" you can use force, but if they say, "give me your money and I won't kill you, Scouts Honor!" you can't shoot!?
Man if that were the case I would've turned to burglary a LONG time ago... jk of course... my mother laid down the Lord's wrath on me when I ate two grapes at the grocery store when I was 8... I've been on the straight and narrow ever since :laugh:
Also, If I'm driving through a rough neighborhood and my family and I get car jacked, I'm pretty sure that we're not going to be able to retreat to "complete safety"... more like stranded for the rest of the wolves to devour...
-
If there's a gun pointed at you during the commission of a crime - your life is in immediate peril. No ifs ands or buts
-
So if they say, "give me your money!" you can use force,
As I understand how the law is written, it completely forbids you using force to resist a thug taking your money.
... or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto...
The law doesn't even give you the opportunity to deny the thug's claim to your personal property. And, if the thug keeps his hand in his pocket while claiming to have a gun and you shoot him, you'll most likely get the Zimmerman treatment, and consider it lucky if you don't end up in prison.
It all boils down to the question of "do you want to be buried by six or tried by twelve?"
-
... or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto...
The claim has to meet a legal threshold of being a legitimate claim to a disputed property
-
As I understand how the law is written, it completely forbids you using force to resist a thug taking your money.
Not true. You can use force to prevent the unlawful taking of your property. You just can't use _deadly_ force if you are only defending property or defending against violence that you do not reasonably believe is likely to result in your death or serious bodily injury.
However, if you are lawfully using force to prevent a thief from taking and carrying away your property, and the thief makes you reasonably fear imminent death or serous bodily injury, you are then entitled to use deadly force.
Example: You can't shoot a guy in the back while he is running away with your TV. However, if you confront him, and he threateningly raises the TV above his head as if preparing to bash you with it, you may very reasonably fear the sort of imminent danger to your person that would allow you to use deadly force in self-defense.
The law doesn't even give you the opportunity to deny the thug's claim to your personal property. And, if the thug keeps his hand in his pocket while claiming to have a gun and you shoot him,
I would need to know more about the facts to reach a conclusion here. But again, the bottom line for using deadly force in self-defense is whether or not a person has caused you to reasonably fear imminent death or serious bodily injury.
you'll most likely get the Zimmerman treatment, and consider it lucky if you don't end up in prison.
It all boils down to the question of "do you want to be buried by six or tried by twelve?"
Maybe, but I agree with the common law standard insofar as it only allows deadly force to be used to save your life or the life of another, to prevent an imminent rape, etc.
"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is recognized as one of the oldest principles of law, and it is a limitation on retaliation. It requires that your defensive or retaliatory response be proportional to the aggressor's conduct. I hope we would all agree that you shouldn't summarily execute a fifteen-year-old thief who is stealing a pack of gum from your convenience store, because such a response would be disproportionately harsh in relation to the offense.
-
This is the section of the code that I was looking at and wondering about:
"The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety" by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take...
How do you know that you can avoid a situation with complete safety if an attacker is pointing a gun at you or your family member? Are you suppose to take his or her word on it? So if they say, "give me your money!" you can use force, but if they say, "give me your money and I won't kill you, Scouts Honor!" you can't shoot!?
The modifier "complete" is there to make the standard more favorable to defenders. The idea is that if you have to endanger yourself in the least in order to retreat, you have no duty to retreat and may use deadly force to defend yourself if you are otherwise entitled to do so.
Also, If I'm driving through a rough neighborhood and my family and I get car jacked, I'm pretty sure that we're not going to be able to retreat to "complete safety"...
True, and if the carjacker is threatening you with a dangerous weapon you would almost certainly be entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself.
-
Not true. You can use force to prevent the unlawful taking of your property. You just can't use _deadly_ force if you are only defending property or defending against violence that you do not reasonably believe is likely to result in your death or serious bodily injury.
However, if you are lawfully using force to prevent a thief from taking and carrying away your property, and the thief makes you reasonably fear imminent death or serous bodily injury, you are then entitled to use deadly force.
Example: You can't shoot a guy in the back while he is running away with your TV. However, if you confront him, and he threateningly raises the TV above his head as if preparing to bash you with it, you may very reasonably fear the sort of imminent danger to your person that would allow you to use deadly force in self-defense.
I have always wondered how that all worked both for private and for business being a self employed masonry contractor.
Has anyone been following Ayoob's blog lately? He's finally speaking about the Zimmerman trial. http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/ (http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/)
-
Consider the armed robbery at a Walgreens three years ago where a customer shot to death one of the robbers. One might argue that this customer had no right to resist the robbers with deadly force and could have run out the door to safety. The Douglas County prosecutor considered the shooting to be legitimate defense. I think there are two messages in this. The first is that the victim of an armed robbery is presumed to be in danger of serious injury or death. A "safe" armed robbery is a contradiction in terms. The second message is that you don't have a duty to retreat unless you have an opportunity that would make you 100% safe. 99% safe isn't good enough.
As far as shooting an "armed" robber with his finger in his pocket is concerned, I think the legal outcome would depend on independent corroboration. If an unbiased witness confirmed the robber's demands and believed at the time the robber was armed, I think the defender would be free and clear. But without a witness, all the evidence would be against him. Zimmerman's situation was the reverse of this. There is evidence that Martin was beating on Zimmerman but no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Available evidence trumps no evidence even if the available evidence is incomplete.
-
All this talk comes down to one inevitable reality:
We involve the government and the courts far too much in our lives and we need to eliminate that.
1) Retreating only means the aggressor gets away with the crime. The only ones truly capable of doing anything about crime are the people (not mention it is in government's best interest to ensure crime levels stay high in order to manipulate people into giving up their rights, power to enslave the people) in their daily lives.
"Those that allow and do nothing to stop a crime/wrong/evil are just as guilty as the one that is committing it."
2) It is the people, each and every individual person, to enforce the law... We should not have police, only a small set of sheriffs and the sheriffs should involve the people when enforcing the law as much and often as possible (basically keep the people directly involved to keep them vigilant and fully aware of what is going on).
3) In your home or on your property, you are king! You are law enforcement, you are judge, jury, and executioner. The individual does not have to grant a fair and just trial, only government is required to do that. However, the individual only has 3 choices for sentence: one, let the aggressor go free with no charge; two, execute the aggressor; three, turn the aggressor over to the government (thus surrendering your authority and is only possible if the aggressor chooses to surrender, but that would be rare).
4) There should be NO law suits by family members or friends or any other group of any sort allowed. Each individual alone is accountable/responsible for their actions, no one else is. Keep things strictly to the individuals directly involved. If I have not committed the act/crime, then I should not be limited/punished/taxed because someone else did.
5) LEOs are useless. The ONLY ones capable and responsible for an individuals safety is the individual themselves. No one else can do it, especially government cannot, only the individual can. By entrusting someone else with a false sense of providing security and safety, we are surrendering our power as a person so others may reign over us...
"Safety and security provided by another is merely tyranny entering through the backdoor."
We should NOT be trusting government to provide us anything...especially safety/security... not to mention they are horrible at doing everything...
"Government even in its best form is evil."
Remember government can only do things by force (largely coercion), but things should be voluntary, not forced.
-
Consider the armed robbery at a Walgreens three years ago where a customer shot to death one of the robbers. One might argue that this customer had no right to resist the robbers with deadly force and could have run out the door to safety. The Douglas County prosecutor considered the shooting to be legitimate defense. I think there are two messages in this. The first is that the victim of an armed robbery is presumed to be in danger of serious injury or death. A "safe" armed robbery is a contradiction in terms. The second message is that you don't have a duty to retreat unless you have an opportunity that would make you 100% safe. 99% safe isn't good enough.
As far as shooting an "armed" robber with his finger in his pocket is concerned, I think the legal outcome would depend on independent corroboration. If an unbiased witness confirmed the robber's demands and believed at the time the robber was armed, I think the defender would be free and clear. But without a witness, all the evidence would be against him. ...
I would also point out that in a store robbery where others are present, the defender may possibly use deadly force in lawful defense of a third party, as authorized by §28-1410 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1410), which expressly provides that the duty to retreat when you can do so in complete safety does not apply to the defender of a third party, if that third party cannot also escape in complete safety. In other words, you do not have a legal obligation to leave an innocent person in harm's way when you could put a stop to their victimization.
28-1410. Use of force for protection of other persons.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section:
(a) When the actor would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he shall not be obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person;
(b) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way; and
(c) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in his own.
You don't have a duty to play the hero in this way, but there is statutory authority for you to do so in some circumstances. Just make darn sure you are right, because you are putting your own rear end on the line.
-
You don't have a duty to play the hero in this way, but there is statutory authority for you to do so in some circumstances. Just make darn sure you are right, because you are putting your own rear end on the line.
I've heard that such thing said many times: "play hero"
It's utterly ridiculous and stupid.
You have to be a "hero" to defend/save yourself?
You have to be a "hero" to stop a crime/wrong?
You have to be a "hero" to save another's life?
Essentially, you have to be a "hero" to live?
Such ideas are ridiculous. Pretty sure doing those things are the duty of each individual citizen, not to mention their right. And doing such things does NOT make someone a hero.
Such ideas are part of the liberal mentality that is illegally restricting innocent people's rights unnecessarily.
(btw...Clark, nothing on you, just such phrases like that drive me nuts...and that we should be careful on using such phrases as not to give them authority/credit/legitimacy.)
-
.
-
the duty to retreat when you can do so in complete safety does not apply to the defender of a third party, if that third party cannot also escape in complete safety.
In the Walgreens case, he was defending himself, too.
-
In the Walgreens case, he was defending himself, too.
Sure, but if he was _only_ defending himself and knew he could retreat in complete safety but instead chose to stand and fight, that could be dicey for him legally given the current state of the law.
-
Thanks for clarifying what I was already determining Clark.
As for the walgreens robbery, it's my understanding that he was definitely defending himself as the robber swung his shotgun in his direction. That would explain why one bullet went down the robber's shotgun barrel.
At least that's part that I heard. Was it a shotgun or one of those Ak16 semiautomatic 45 cal machine guns with 100 round tracer hollow point cop killer armour piercing cartridges? I can't remember from the news report? :D
-
As for the walgreens robbery, it's my understanding that he was definitely defending himself as the robber swung his shotgun in his direction. That would explain why one bullet went down the robber's shotgun barrel.
:o
-
No, you have no obligation to defend yourself. Your life is yours, and you are not acting unjustly if you choose not to defend it. Just like I can forgive a debt owed me, so too can I voluntarily abstain from defending what is mine if I so prefer. The fact that you have the right to do something does not mean that you have a corresponding obligation to do that thing.
You have no obligation to defend others unless you have positively assumed such an obligation. To suggest otherwise is to assert that we are all slaves, and I naturally reject this.
Yes, exposing yourself to the risk of serious injury or death to save another human being does indeed make you a hero. To give this gift, to go beyond what you owe others and to choose to do more despite the personal cost, that is heroic.
What drives me nuts is when people assert that we all owe some pre-existing duty to each other that we haven't consented to or voluntarily assumed by a freely chosen course of conduct. What drives me even more nuts is the Orwellian mindset that would suggest that this slavery, this involuntary service that we supposedly owe to others for no good reason, is actually called "freedom." These are the principles of collectivism, not individual liberty.
Not what I was meaning.
No obligation to your family to defend yourself to make sure you go home to them?
No obligation to not infringe on another's rights?
We do have obligations, mostly not to negatively impact on other people's rights. All rights are unlimited, except the limitations we voluntarily choose to place on ourselves per our interactions with other individuals determined on each individual interaction.
If you are not going to defend another person's rights (i.e. right to life), why should they help defend your rights? (of course, if they are not going to defend their own rights, why defend their rights for them)
"Your life is yours, and you are not acting unjustly if you choose not to defend it."
True and is why no one has any business or right in stopping suicides. They are acting out their right of life.
It's the principle of selfishness that I operate on. It is in the individuals selfish best interest to help others out...but it must be voluntary and not forced.
It is not being a hero to save another's life, you cannot make yourself a hero. That is something others declare on you. All you did in saving another's life is doing a good deed. It may be heroic thing to do, but that does not make you a hero. Hero is merely in the eye of the beholder.
Clark, we are on the same page, just reaching the same outcome from different angles. But yes, society/government has no business placing the obligations on us, we should be doing that ourselves.
We have to work together in this world, but yes on a voluntary basis.
-
The Walgreens robbery was a self-defense and defense of others.
I know the guy.
He was positioned away from the door, in front of the cash registers. The only way for him to get out would be to try and get passed the robbers. Well that would definitely put him in more danger. The same went for the rest of the people in the store.
Yes, there was a .45 cal round in the shotgun barrel.
As another tidbit...The guy didn't have his CCW yet (not that I care, there should be no permit...we should not be asking permission to utilize our rights), but thanks to the others in the store and the wording in the law, he was fine (the grip was not covered according to witnesses).
-
.
-
Now you are changing the hypo! Yes, if someone else is entitled to your support, taking some risk
Positive obligations are obligations to act in some way or another. I don't believe that you have any of these unless you:
(a) voluntarily assumed them by your free choice (e.g., if you accept my money in exchange for your promise that you will build me a brick wall, you need to get my brick wall built or you will owe me money damages)
(b) assumed them by some coluntary course of conduct on your part that resulted in your owing said duty to someone. (e.g., if you shove some poor stranger into an icy creek, you thereby assume a duty to rescue him from the peril that you have put him in)
Negative obligations are duties to refrain from acting in some way or another. Obviously we all have an obligation to refrain from conduct that violates the life, liberty, and property of others.
That is a pragmatic concern, not a question of justice or rights. Yes, it could be that being willing to help defend your neighbor means that he will be more likely that he will pitch in to defend you. That doesn't mean that you have a duty to do any defending, unless you have voluntarily created such an obligation for yourself.
Some people may want to skip that personal obligation. Some people may choose for religious or philosophical reasons to be total pacifists and never use violence, even against aggressors. I believe that they have the right to live that way, and to accept the consequences of living that way.
Again, sometimes people choose to forgive debts. Sometimes people choose not to fight back. If I knew that someone was a conscientious pacifist, I would probably not use violence to defend them.
If someone is just unprepared for defending himself, well, I might try to help and figure he would be motivated to pay it forward later.
Yes, though of course suicide is sad, it is not appropriate to use violence to stop a person from committing suicide (assuming that they possess the mental capacity to make such a decision; I think I would probably feel just fine about stopping a drunk guy from jumping off a roof or something, and I suspect he would ratify this action later when he regained his faculties). And in general, I would certainly try to persuade a suicidal person to reconsider.
I believe that every individual ought to be able to act as he chooses to promote his best interests as he sees them, so long as he does not violate the property rights of others, including their right to their bodily integrity.
Basically, this is about the shortest statement of the libertarian "non-aggression principle" that I can muster. All my policy positions are derived from that simple philosophy. I don't view it as "selfishness" (a word which we both know has a negative connotation in modern usage, except among Randians/Objectivists), but rather rational self-interest.
Not changing the hypo...those things are always there, even if not stated.
Sure, selfishness has a negative connotation in today's SOCIALIST nations (and I will assume that you know what I am meaning in that as they love to manipulate things). But it is only negative if it negatively impacts on another.
Same goes for aggression, it's not bad to be aggressive, but what the aggression is used to do. If it wasn't for aggression, humans would die out without a whisper. We just call it survival instinct instead, trying to pretty things up. Aggression and selfishness are two key components of survival.
Just because "society" or government says something, does not make it so.
But now we are saying the same things, just in different words. Every individual is responsible for all consequences for the actions they choose to do, whether they are known before hand or not....ignorance is not an excuse.
As for the suicide thing, I would also ask "why" in order to see if the reason why they are choosing to do so can be fixed (whether to help them or to help others), but I would never in my logical sense be able to directly stop them. But it should be left for the individual to CHOOSE not to carry out the suicide as per their right. Yes, for a lack of a better word, "convince" them... but that should be done by correcting the issue not stopping them directly.
As for the drunk guy, of course one would be good to stop someone who is drunk, they may not even be trying to commit suicide, but merely being an idiot... but of course to that I say let them fall as individuals must deal with all consequences both known and unknown for the choices they make.
As for violence being used to stop suicide, I'm not sure where you were going, that doesn't make sense. Wouldn't that violate the non-aggression principle?
It is impossible to victimize yourself.
However, every individual does have obligations to every other individual.. and no it's not collectivist...it's recognizing we are not alone and that we have to work together.
Every individual has an obligation to all others to stop a crime and various other things (like not destroying the public park so others can enjoy it) . If you choose not to, especially if you have the means to do so, you are just as guilty as the one committing the crime/wrong (principle of the good Samaritan) .
For instance, someone breaks into your house or robs a store you are in. But you choose to do nothing to stop it and they get away. By choosing to do nothing, you just chose to sentence another person to suffer a similar or worse crime later on or even right that moment. You have no right to do that. By doing nothing, you might as well be helping commit or committing the current or next crime yourself.
Every choice has consequences we can see before hand and ones we may never know of...but we are responsible for both either way, though we may never directly feel them come down on us nor realize it.
Of course if you have no means to stop the crime, how would you? Everything within reason of course.
Now, obligation is not a requirement. One may be obligated to do something, that doesn't mean they are required to do it, but that also doesn't mean it doesn't still come with recourse.
-
This case should never have been brought to trial. Even liberal Law professor Alan Dershowitz says that, and he also says that the idiot special prosecutor was the most illegal part of this whole thing. I hope Zimmerman sues that slimy piece of trash; there needs to be some kind of check on that kind of abuse of power.
The worst thing about Eric Holder's behavior now is that no one is surprised by it. We've grown accustomed to flagrant abuse of power at the highest levels of government.
The liberal press will continue to use the lies it injected into this case to divide the races against each other, to serve its political agenda. If that leads to violence, that serves their purpose too. If nothing else, more violence gives them better numbers to use in their anti-gun propaganda.
The Lincoln Journal is as liberal and dishonorable as any other part of the liberal propaganda machine. Just something to think about if any of us ever have to defend ourselves in this area.
-
This case should never have been brought to trial. ....
The Sanford prosecutor decided that Zimmerman was within his rights according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law and did not press charges. Eric Holder and the DOJ decided that they were going to exploit this case in order to push their anti-2A agenda so they sent some of their people (CRS) to Sanford to "advise" Left Wing groups there on "how to protest" the ruling. They did that by injecting race into the situation. To make the "protest" more palatable and racial, NBC and CBS began identifying Zimmerman as "White", and they edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear to use a racial term, raising the issue of "hate". When their distortion of Zimmerman's utterances was pointed out they created a new ethnic group, "White Hispanic", so that "White guilt" and hence, to them, racial hatred, could still be attributed to Zimmerman. When that ploy was proven to be equally wrong and biased, they moved their "apology" to the back pages, so that the impression would still remain. A zealous Left Wing State Prosecutor took the DOJ's lead and filed 2nd Murder charges. The case blew up in their face and vindicated the local prosecutor's decision not to prosecute Zimmerman. The state's best witnesses for the prosecution turned out to be better witnesses for the defense. The six woman jury did not act out of blind emotion or Left Wing hysteria as, I suspect, the prosecution had hoped they would.
Having been found not guilty the provisions of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law forbid civil lawsuits against the shooter so Martin's parents cannot use the lower standards of civil prosecutions to extract huge sums of money from Zimmerman.
Now, failing their first option, the DOJ is trying to generate "witnesses" from Zimmerman's past that would collaborate accusations that he is a racist. The media has already scoured his past and couldn't find anyone willing to testify in court, under oath, that they saw Zimmerman saying or doing things which fits today's politically correct standards of "racism". Can they? Who knows? But, one thing for sure, it won't stop the Marxist press from using the incident, including all of their distortions and falsifications of it, to promote their anti-2A agenda.
Nebraska needs a "Stand Your Ground" law for the sake of those who will be faced with the necessity of having to use deadly force to defend their lives, loved ones and home, and to be free from relatives of the thugs using the legal system to extract cash from the victim. After all, wasn't "extracting cash" the purpose of the thug's attack in the first place? So, why does the law help the thug or his relatives to achieve what threats of force failed to do? And what good are civil lawsuits to the relatives of murdered victims if the thugs have no assets and their life style of chemical abuses is financed by government welfare checks?
The worst thing about Eric Holder's behavior now is that no one is surprised by it. We've grown accustomed to flagrant abuse of power at the highest levels of government.
After SIX MAJOR scandals surrounding the unconstitutional and illegal behavior of the highest levels of the administration and the federal agencies run by heads it appointed, the most astounding thing to me is the level of unconcern shown by most Americans. What Justice Souter said in a video I recently posted is made patently clear: most Americans do not understand the Constitution or the structure of our government. For more than half of them now, the only important thing is that they get their monthly welfare and/or disability check. Even those not on welfare take their freedoms for granted. I suspect that if things continue the way they are going the freedoms we have enjoyed will disappear completely .... for our safety, of course.
-
I know the guy.
Yes, there was a .45 cal round in the shotgun barrel.
You should know then that he used a S&W .40 cal handgun in that incident
-
And fully expect the DOJ to get into it as a civil rights case.
On what grounds, exactly? Did Mr. Zimmerman violate Mr. Martin's Right To Beat Whitey Until He Gets Tired (R2BWUHGT?)
I still say GZ did not kill TM ....... Trayvon killed himself, at first a little at a time with drugs of various kinds and then went whole hog by attacking a man with a gun..... George Z. just carried the bullet for him awhile.
-
The pro Trayvon folks keep asking what would have happened if the roles were reversed, what if Trey was white and Zimmerman black? Well we know what would have happened because it did two years before this shooting:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roderickscott.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roderickscott.asp)