Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[cF[Authentic]]

James Patrick Wonder is claiming "Stand Your Ground" immunity on manslaughter charges in the shooting of a customs agent, Donald Pettit, in the parking lot of a Pembroke Pines post office. Wonder claims Pettit followed him to the lot in a road rage incident, before he shot the agent in front of Pettit's 12-year-old daughter, who was in the car with him.

The big part of the examples you've listed is that all but one of them haven't been decided in court yet. Just because someone claims stand your ground going into a trial doesn't mean they will get off because of it. Just like pleading temporary insanity. You can do it but that doesn't mean the instant you do, you're set free.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Can't speak to the validity or anything...but a case not unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case. Someone killed where the shooter is claiming self defense. Another sign these gun laws need to be dealt with:

Unstable ground: The fine line between self-defense and murder
CNN

Something was definitely wrong.

Adkins and his wife, Antonia, had searched the neighborhood just hours earlier, tracing their missing son's footsteps down two miles of dusty road to a cluster of strip malls. But they didn't make it as far as the Taco Bell. If they had, they would have come across the flashing police lights and the body of Daniel Jr., lying on the asphalt by the drive-thru window, with their dog Lady by his side.

The next morning brought two police detectives bearing news that Daniel Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed. The shooter said he acted in self-defense. He has not been charged.

Adkins' death on April 3 marks the most recent chapter in America's debate over the right to use lethal force. The controversy has ricocheted from coast to coast ever since unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, on February 26.

In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.

Whether or not STG laws deserve scrutiny, what am I supposed to gather from this copy that supports as much? From the above we know there's a dead victim and a shooter claiming self-defense. Not only could that have occurred without such laws, but we have zero details on the story to question or support the merit of his defense stance. No offense meant, but the topic is volatile enough without introducing (as of yet) non sequiturs.

With Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect. Do you really think that the number of crimes are up 200%?

Crimes need not be up 200% for said self-defenses to be up a similar amount - fact is people had to run and hide before these laws were enacted.

btw - it should be obvious from posting history I'm not an NRA bobo of any sort, and I agree that STG laws deserve review. That said this can be done on logical ground and sans manufactured umbrage.

[goldy_331]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

btw - it should be obvious from posting history I'm not an NRA bobo of any sort, and I agree that STG laws deserve review. That said this can be done on logical ground and sans manufactured umbrage.

But, but, without manufactured umbrage most of these threads would be about three posts long.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Whether or not STG laws deserve scrutiny, what am I supposed to gather from this copy that supports as much? From the above we know there's a dead victim and a shooter claiming self-defense. Not only could that have occurred without such laws, but we have zero details on the story to question or support the merit of his defense stance. No offense meant, but the topic is volatile enough without introducing (as of yet) non sequiturs.

First, yes, I do think you've bias when it comes to gun issues as its pretty much the only time you respond to my posts.

If the shooter is literally found not guilty...none of this matters and STG had no impact whatsoever. If the shooter is found guilty and prosecuted...none of this matters and STG had no impact whatsoever. If the shooter would be found guilty of murder without STG but is released because of STG...STG causes misjustice.

I see no scenario here where STG does improve justice. None. I do see an obvious scenario where a guy murders and defenseless innocent and due to the wide open language in the law manipulates facts to get himself off.

Please tell me where I'm wrong...what scenario could happen where STG is a godsend for justice in this case based on what we know? And why is it an impossibility that the shooter did just kill a defenseless guy and the facts happen to get warped where STG gets totally get him off? Do tell.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Please tell me where I'm wrong...what scenario could happen where STG is a godsend for justice in this case based on what we know?

Not seeing that argument having been advanced anywhere. Again - what is it about the case you reported that says, "STG's are bad"?

btw - no I don't have a right-leaning bias regarding gun laws - ownership is a privilege not a god given right, people shouldn't be able to own whatever friggin weapon they want, ownership should require strict background checks, etc., etc. If those beliefs make you believe I'm posting on bias and not logic than we can stop right now - but regardless of your assumption my question stands.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Not seeing that argument having been advanced anywhere. Again - what is it about the case you reported that says, "STG's are bad"?

I just posted that there are absolutely scenarios where gross misjustice could be done...and none where STG aids justice. Does that not make STG a problem? Did you even read my post?

Listen. Posters level challenges and and in the spirit of dialog, I address them over and over. Not one poster has even attempted to return the favor to answer a question of mine. Its just not worth the time.

I think you made a different point here that bares noting. Folks are falling over themselves to claim that they aren't NRA fanatics...but oddly its the same troup that shows up when ever anyone starts to discuss the danger of guns and they always argue on the side of guns. I can't imagine its a coincidence. I don't mind saying I have a perspective...and likewise I know you have one. So I am not surprised at the number of posters for whom guns is the deal...and the few posters for whom justice in murder is the deal. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on priorities.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

That's a cheap and lazy retort. I myself am not convinced STG laws are necessary and don't or require scrutiny, but based upon the at most handful of exchanges you and I have had total I'm branded biased on the issue? Despite the three distinctly anti-NRA stances I provided?

Again:

Whether or not STG laws deserve scrutiny, what am I supposed to gather from this copy that supports as much? From the above we know there's a dead victim and a shooter claiming self-defense. Not only could that have occurred without such laws, but we have zero details on the story to question or support the merit of his defense stance. No offense meant, but the topic is volatile enough without introducing (as of yet) non sequiturs. Provide a legitimate and direct response or don't bother.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

That's a cheap and lazy retort. I myself am not convinced STG laws are necessary and don't or require scrutiny, but based upon the at most handful of exchanges you and I have had total I'm branded biased on the issue? Despite the three distinctly anti-NRA stances I provided?

Again:

And again:

If the shooter is literally found not guilty...none of this matters and STG had no impact whatsoever. If the shooter is found guilty and prosecuted...none of this matters and STG had no impact whatsoever. If the shooter would be found guilty of murder without STG but is released because of STG...STG causes misjustice.

I just posted that there are absolutely scenarios where gross misjustice could be done...and none where STG aids justice. Does that not make STG a problem?

If you ignore my above response to your comment a third time...no need to ask for me to respond yet again.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Still no arrest. So SS...I guess there's no possibility of guilt then. He can't be tried if he's not arrested.

Update: Daniel Adkins Case - Killer Still Not Charged (Video)
April 30, 2012 10:35 PM EDT

On April 3rd, Daniel Adkins, a 29-year-old unarmed Hispanic, was killed by Cordell Jude while he was walking his dog by a Taco Bell in Arizona in "self-defence." Adkins was almost struck while walking by the drive thru. The police report states that "the driver slammed on the brakes, just missing Adkins. The two men exchanged words." Daniel and Cordell had an angry exchange, which led the 22-year-old black man to shoot Adkins, killing him.

The driver was with a pregnant woman in the passenger seat. At first, the couple said that Adkins was waving a metal object, such as a pipe. "The shooter told police that Adkins 'air swung' his hands in the direction of the SUV, but acknowledged he never hit him or his vehicle." No weapon was found at the scene, according to the local news.

The man who killed Adkins claimed self defence and has not been arrested.

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Still no arrest. So SS...I guess there's no possibility of guilt then. He can't be tried if he's not arrested.

Update: Daniel Adkins Case - Killer Still Not Charged (Video)
April 30, 2012 10:35 PM EDT

On April 3rd, Daniel Adkins, a 29-year-old unarmed Hispanic, was killed by Cordell Jude while he was walking his dog by a Taco Bell in Arizona in "self-defence." Adkins was almost struck while walking by the drive thru. The police report states that "the driver slammed on the brakes, just missing Adkins. The two men exchanged words." Daniel and Cordell had an angry exchange, which led the 22-year-old black man to shoot Adkins, killing him.

The driver was with a pregnant woman in the passenger seat. At first, the couple said that Adkins was waving a metal object, such as a pipe. "The shooter told police that Adkins 'air swung' his hands in the direction of the SUV, but acknowledged he never hit him or his vehicle." No weapon was found at the scene, according to the local news.

The man who killed Adkins claimed self defence and has not been arrested.

Just how long have you been obsessed with this stuff? I'm guessing at least since news of the Trayvon Martin shooting got out. I'm wondering, in the interim, how many young black men have been killed in Florida by other young black men? 5? 10? 20? 50? And where have you and the Revs been? Your dance card too full worrying about stand your ground? One death at the hands of a white guy a far bigger tragedy than dozens of deaths at the hands of other black guys? Not enough time to be concerned about the continuing slaughter? By providing this example, you're evidently trying to prove you're balanced. "See, this is a case of a black guy shooting a Latino, see, I'm not prejudiced against Zimmerman." Sorry, Charlie, it won't work.

As has been pointed out previousy, these brief, one sided reports don't mean somebody won't be arrested, charged, tried and convicted in these cases. But you're already several steps ahead of the facts in your haste to make this "case." It's really pretty pathetic, IMO, that you've spent nearly an entire day, strenuously scrounging around for annecdotal "evidence" that there's a huge problem with "stand your ground," and that "something must be done." Maybe there is. But these highly selective, highly edited "examples," don't prove the point.

Seriously, if you're going to continue providing highly redacted quotes, for the sake of honesty and integrity, you really should also provide attribution.

[XYZ]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Listen. Posters level challenges and and in the spirit of dialog, I address them over and over.

Then do me a favor and finally get around to, instead of rambling in tangential generalities about the topic du jour, explaining to me where, when and to what extent you would execute the war on terror. I asked it five times and it's now been three years. Thanks.

By the way, got any more insight on the situation in Georgia (and I'm not talking Bulldog Country)?

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I just posted that there are absolutely scenarios where gross misjustice could be done...and none where STG aids justice. Does that not make STG a problem? Did you even read my post?

Listen. Posters level challenges and and in the spirit of dialog, I address them over and over. Not one poster has even attempted to return the favor to answer a question of mine. Its just not worth the time.

I think you made a different point here that bares noting. Folks are falling over themselves to claim that they aren't NRA fanatics...but oddly its the same troup that shows up when ever anyone starts to discuss the danger of guns and they always argue on the side of guns. I can't imagine its a coincidence. I don't mind saying I have a perspective...and likewise I know you have one. So I am not surprised at the number of posters for whom guns is the deal...and the few posters for whom justice in murder is the deal. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on priorities.

Naturally, the only people who disagree with you here are "NRA fanatics." Of course. My Wayne LaPierre watch must have given it away. And for you, "murder is the deal" and "justice." But "guns are (obviously) the deal" for me. After all, even though I've never owned a gun, I did fire one decades ago in the military (and earned a small arms marksmanship ribbon in the process). You just can't trust gun nuts. They're all alike.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

No more needs to be said as I've made my point on poster priorities...you could set your watch by SS showing up when someone posts the word gun.

In the past, I actually have no problem answering tangents...but when answered, posters don't stay there...they turn into an endless stream of other tangents. Its already happened here. I don't mind answering challenges...but then I do, a poster ignores it, forcing me to repeat myself, which they then continue to ignore again. And although I am off to Monty again this summer, I never respond to those on a message board who have asked to meet in person.

Based on a legitimate challenge, I've tried to discuss the actual defense of my position: there are negative court room justice implications...but no positive justice implications of STG. Some like Garcia are getting off whereas they otherwise would be locked up forever and possible murderers won't even see a day in court as they're not being arrested. And in the end, nobody else addresses my defense that the law only provides negative justice outcomes in the court room...nor does anyone go near explaining why in their opinion this is great for court room justice...so forget the 'discussion'.

[walrus]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Then do me a favor and finally get around to, instead of rambling in tangential generalities about the topic du jour, explaining to me where, when and to what extent you would execute the war on terror. I asked it five times and it's now been three years. Thanks.

He is too busy ducking those bullets during his morning commute

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I think this is the key, protect your house and home, no issue, walking around playing cop, big problem.

fixed romney's post...

I'm busy ducking those bullets during my morning commute