knapplc Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun or not doesn't matter. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun and couldn't stop Martin from bashing his head in and killed Zimmerman that's not justified. Everything after "Martin has a right to self defense" is wrong. Under Florida law, Martin has a right to confront his pursuer, and we know Zimmerman pursued Martin based on the 911 call. Martin does not have to flee the area under Stand Your Ground. And if there's a confrontation Martin is justified - under Florida law - for defending himself. But you're saying he doesn't have the same right to use deadly force as Zimmerman. Who's being biased now? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't and wouldn't carry a gun. I probably would not have called the police on some random person walking in the first place, and if I did, I certainly would not have left my car. So your hypothetical questions would never have taken place for me. The end. BTW - bash is a strong word in light of the medical examiner's testimony that the injuries were "insignificant". Unless there is a reason you believe the defense forensic witness and not the prosecution's. this is the craziest part. he, himself, thought martin was 'suspicious'. a reasonable person does not leave their car to approach someone who is 'suspicious'. you stay where you are safe and wait for the proper authorities to arrive. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun or not doesn't matter. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun and couldn't stop Martin from bashing his head in and killed Zimmerman that's not justified. Everything after "Martin has a right to self defense" is wrong. Under Florida law, Martin has a right to confront his pursuer, and we know Zimmerman pursued Martin based on the 911 call. Martin does not have to flee the area under Stand Your Ground. And if there's a confrontation Martin is justified - under Florida law - for defending himself. But you're saying he doesn't have the same right to use deadly force as Zimmerman. Who's being biased now? So now you are saying that all laws are right? Yes i know under Florida law you are allowed to flee, go grab a gun, and kill that person. In no way shape or form is that self defense. If anything that's premediated murder. When you are no longer in danger it no longer becomes self defense unless they threatened to kill your family. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't and wouldn't carry a gun. I probably would not have called the police on some random person walking in the first place, and if I did, I certainly would not have left my car. So your hypothetical questions would never have taken place for me. The end. BTW - bash is a strong word in light of the medical examiner's testimony that the injuries were "insignificant". Unless there is a reason you believe the defense forensic witness and not the prosecution's. this is the craziest part. he, himself, thought martin was 'suspicious'. a reasonable person does not leave their car to approach someone who is 'suspicious'. you stay where you are safe and wait for the proper authorities to arrive. not always. some people have the courage to do things other people wouldn't. you know like cops. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. \ How about claiming self defense when you're actively pursuing someone? Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun or not doesn't matter. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun and couldn't stop Martin from bashing his head in and killed Zimmerman that's not justified. Everything after "Martin has a right to self defense" is wrong. Under Florida law, Martin has a right to confront his pursuer, and we know Zimmerman pursued Martin based on the 911 call. Martin does not have to flee the area under Stand Your Ground. And if there's a confrontation Martin is justified - under Florida law - for defending himself. But you're saying he doesn't have the same right to use deadly force as Zimmerman. Who's being biased now? So now you are saying that all laws are right? Yes i know under Florida law you are allowed to flee, go grab a gun, and kill that person. In no way shape or form is that self defense. If anything that's premediated murder. When you are no longer in danger it no longer becomes self defense unless they threatened to kill your family. You appear to be wavering back and forth between arguing the justness of Florida law and (apparently) your own opinion. You've been making the case, under Florida law, that Zimmerman's actions were just. I'm showing you that both person's actions were just, under Florida law, and asking you if it would still be "justice" (to use your word) if Martin had killed Zimmerman. Under Florida law. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 If that stranger was on top of you and bashing your head into the concrete then felt you had a gun and reached for it and you tried to get it away from him would you take a chance that stranger wouldn't use it on you? What did I do before this stranger was on top of me? The things that you're describing are all after the fact. No they aren't. can you show me where Zimmerman and Martin knew each other? Uhhhh . . . yeah they are. And what on earth are you talking about re: Zimmerman and Martin knowing each other? I'm starting to suspect that despite your obviously passionate feelings you don't really have an articulable basis for those feelings. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 Unless there is a reason you believe the defense forensic witness and not the prosecution's. I think that we know the answer to this . . . Link to comment
husker_99 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun or not doesn't matter. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun and couldn't stop Martin from bashing his head in and killed Zimmerman that's not justified. Everything after "Martin has a right to self defense" is wrong. Under Florida law, Martin has a right to confront his pursuer, and we know Zimmerman pursued Martin based on the 911 call. Martin does not have to flee the area under Stand Your Ground. And if there's a confrontation Martin is justified - under Florida law - for defending himself. But you're saying he doesn't have the same right to use deadly force as Zimmerman. Who's being biased now? So now you are saying that all laws are right? Yes i know under Florida law you are allowed to flee, go grab a gun, and kill that person. In no way shape or form is that self defense. If anything that's premediated murder. When you are no longer in danger it no longer becomes self defense unless they threatened to kill your family. You appear to be wavering back and forth between arguing the justness of Florida law and (apparently) your own opinion. You've been making the case, under Florida law, that Zimmerman's actions were just. I'm showing you that both person's actions were just, under Florida law, and asking you if it would still be "justice" (to use your word) if Martin had killed Zimmerman. Under Florida law. So you are saying that if i follow you then stop that means you have the right to kill me? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't and wouldn't carry a gun. I probably would not have called the police on some random person walking in the first place, and if I did, I certainly would not have left my car. So your hypothetical questions would never have taken place for me. The end. BTW - bash is a strong word in light of the medical examiner's testimony that the injuries were "insignificant". Unless there is a reason you believe the defense forensic witness and not the prosecution's. this is the craziest part. he, himself, thought martin was 'suspicious'. a reasonable person does not leave their car to approach someone who is 'suspicious'. you stay where you are safe and wait for the proper authorities to arrive. not always. some people have the courage to do things other people wouldn't. you know like cops. exactly, bro. those people also have the proper training and can call for backup so they limit, if not completely mitigate, the need for lethal force. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't and wouldn't carry a gun. I probably would not have called the police on some random person walking in the first place, and if I did, I certainly would not have left my car. So your hypothetical questions would never have taken place for me. The end. BTW - bash is a strong word in light of the medical examiner's testimony that the injuries were "insignificant". Unless there is a reason you believe the defense forensic witness and not the prosecution's. this is the craziest part. he, himself, thought martin was 'suspicious'. a reasonable person does not leave their car to approach someone who is 'suspicious'. you stay where you are safe and wait for the proper authorities to arrive. not always. some people have the courage gun to do things other people wouldn't. you know like cops wannabe cops. 1 Link to comment
husker_99 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 If that stranger was on top of you and bashing your head into the concrete then felt you had a gun and reached for it and you tried to get it away from him would you take a chance that stranger wouldn't use it on you? What did I do before this stranger was on top of me? The things that you're describing are all after the fact. No they aren't. can you show me where Zimmerman and Martin knew each other? Uhhhh . . . yeah they are. And what on earth are you talking about re: Zimmerman and Martin knowing each other? I'm starting to suspect that despite your obviously passionate feelings you don't really have an articulable basis for those feelings. LOL if anything you, junior, knapplc, sd'sker are taking the side of Martin even though all the evidence backs up Zimmerman and you are allowing your feelings of an unarmed kid get in the way. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 LOL if anything you, junior, knapplc, sd'sker are taking the side of Martin even though all the evidence backs up Zimmerman and you are allowing your feelings of an unarmed kid get in the way. You've got to be trolling. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 You appear to be wavering back and forth between arguing the justness of Florida law and (apparently) your own opinion. You've been making the case, under Florida law, that Zimmerman's actions were just. I'm showing you that both person's actions were just, under Florida law, and asking you if it would still be "justice" (to use your word) if Martin had killed Zimmerman. Under Florida law. So you are saying that if i follow you then stop that means you have the right to kill me? You've been saying, this entire thread, that Zimmerman had the right to kill Martin because Martin was being followed and then stopped. That was "justice," to use your word. The differences between these two arguments are minimal, if not nonexistent. Link to comment
Apathy Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 No Martin has a right to self defense but when you run away and then come back that is no longer self defense. Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun or not doesn't matter. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun and couldn't stop Martin from bashing his head in and killed Zimmerman that's not justified. Everything after "Martin has a right to self defense" is wrong. Under Florida law, Martin has a right to confront his pursuer, and we know Zimmerman pursued Martin based on the 911 call. Martin does not have to flee the area under Stand Your Ground. And if there's a confrontation Martin is justified - under Florida law - for defending himself. But you're saying he doesn't have the same right to use deadly force as Zimmerman. Who's being biased now? So now you are saying that all laws are right? Yes i know under Florida law you are allowed to flee, go grab a gun, and kill that person. In no way shape or form is that self defense. If anything that's premediated murder. When you are no longer in danger it no longer becomes self defense unless they threatened to kill your family. Youre arguing with people who are saying that Zimmerman was armed and who intended to kill an unarmed Martin Link to comment
Recommended Posts