"Stand Your Ground" laws, are they a good, or bad idea?

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

turkey ass? dude, wait... what? does it come with a side of verrega de pedro?

we fight over the turkey's ass every thanksgiving. it's the best part.

i'm not even going to look up verrega de pedro.

oh I thought he was asking for verga de pedro

Originally Posted by abandonconflict

oh I thought he was asking for verga de pedro

yeah, the extra RRRRRRRRRRR es mi bueno RRRRRRRRolling mi R's (or got a key stuck)

but you got my meaning adequately. also i would like to direct you to my comments on verega de Rachel Maddow.

Oh no, it happened again...

Originally Posted by desert dude

1

3. No SYG law that I am aware of allows you to use deadly force against somebody unless that person is reasonably believed to be about to do great bodily harm or murder yourself or another.

4. If you can neutralize an attacker by shooting the knife/club/gun out of their hand, then more power to you. Maybe you can get a movie contract with Jackie Chan?

California has a very simple self defense homicide statute the full text is as follows:


197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. 198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone. 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.

To sum up, you may use lethal force in defense of yourself, somebody else, your property, somebody else's property, and basically to prevent any person from committing any felony crime. (felony defined as any crime punishable by at least one year in slam)

if somebody is in your property boundaries, in your house, or in your business and you shoot them, the state is to presume you shot them justifiably.

if the state cant prove you had no justification to shoot them, you are acquitted

but even in california zimmerman would be fucked in the ass for his retarded vigilantism.

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

California has a very simple self defense homicide statute the full text is as follows:


197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. 198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone. 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.

To sum up, you may use lethal force in defense of yourself, somebody else, your property, somebody else's property, and basically to prevent any person from committing any felony crime. (felony defined as any crime punishable by at least one year in slam)

if somebody is in your property boundaries, in your house, or in your business and you shoot them, the state is to presume you shot them justifiably.

if the state cant prove you had no justification to shoot them, you are acquitted

but even in california zimmerman would be fucked in the ass for his retarded vigilantism.

Given the physical evidence: Zimmerman was battered, bruised and contused, witnesses saw him being pummeled, the police report corroborates this evidence. Martin was unmarked except for scraped knuckles, evidently from pummeling Zimmerman, and a single gun shot wound to his chest.

The only way I can see to conclude that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense is to conclude that he did NOT reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death was imminent.

Originally Posted by desert dude

Given the physical evidence: Zimmerman was battered, bruised and contused, witnesses saw him being pummeled, the police report corroborates this evidence. Martin was unmarked except for scraped knuckles, evidently from pummeling Zimmerman, and a single gun shot wound to his chest.

The only way I can see to conclude that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense is to conclude that he did NOT reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death was imminent.

Zimmerman, armed, and in a public thoroughfare, followed Martin in his car, then got out and followed on foot. he was instructed by the 911 operator to NOT follow the "suspect", yet he continued to follow him, thus he is no longer vigilant, he is a stalker, and ultimately a vigilante.

When he started following people he thought might be up to mischief, he stepped out of neighborhood watch and into the role of Batman.

Occasionally i find it prudent to travel armed, and when i do, its for personal defense. I dont go out looking for "perps" to stalk.

People who are afraid of somebody dont creep after them in the night, follow them down dark breezeways, or place themselves in a position to get their asses kicked.

The only sequence of events i can logically infer from the evidence, is that the wannabe Batman Zimmerman stalked his target, and when Martin turned to DEFEND HIMSELF against an armed assailant Zimmerman cocksure in his possession of a gun, played a quick De Niro Taxi Driver scene, overestimated the speed of his fastdraw, fumbled his shit, got fucked up, and when he finally got his piece out, Martin got dead.

Zimmerman exhibited all the classic symptoms of a dipshit who wants to be Rambo. He claims Martin was intimidating and looked like a hoodlum, if he was in such fear of this black dude, why the fuck would he follow him in his truck after calling the cops to report the suspect's Walking After Dark While Colored violation (not sure what statute that is...) Why then after being instructed to NOT continue following the "suspect" did he continue following said black dude down a dark alley?

If some dimwit followed me down a dark alley i might just pummel him too. and by might, i mean i sure as fuck would beat that ass with the nearest handy massive object. Zimmerman having a gun just gave him the advantage, but he exhibited ZERO judgement and none of the responsibility incumbent on a gun owner or anyone who travels armed.

These are the signs of a dumbass with a chip on his shoulder and an itchy trigger finger.

Zimmerman's story, and the stories of his defense team dont add up.

Originally Posted by desert dude

...The only way I can see to conclude that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense...

dude, you don't get to chase someone around with your gun and claim self defense. that's not how it works.

self defense would have been georgy boy going back to his truck, locking the doors, and waiting for the police to meet him.

but he told the police not to meet him at his truck, he wanted them to call him for his location. georgy boy was on the offense against someone he describes as a "kid" who was running away from him.

self defense is out the window.