NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,326
Racist.
Racist.
It is abused IMO. I get the shoot some asshole breaking into your house thing. But people use self-defense even when they fricking pick a damn fight. It is ridiculous.I also don't understand people who have a problem with Stand Your Ground and the castle doctrine. Argue they can be misused, fine. But to claim I have to stick my neck out to make sure a guy in my house in the middle of the night is there to kill my family and not just to steal my TV is absurd to me.
I take this back after seeing some of the stupid shit on the interwebs today.I don't think the media would be to necessarily to blame for it.
Concerning the Castle Doctrine, if they are on your property and won't leave, then all bets are off. You should be able to shoot them, even from 100 feet.It is abused IMO. I get the shoot some asshole breaking into your house thing. But people use self-defense even when they fricking pick a damn fight. It is ridiculous.
All that sugar was bad for his health anyway, Zimmerman did him a huge favorIf they are on your property and are carrying Skittles and iced tea you can shoot them twice.
I already stated why he was reckless in discharging his firearm and why it was a reckless decision to start firing.Reckless in doing things besides killing someone. That's where you are getting tripped up.
Agreed, but he could have been carrying the weapon and not followed Martin. His recklessness in carrying the weapon is not the same as whether he was reckless in using the weapon.
For the manslaughter conviction, once again, you must say he was reckless in killing Martin, not reckless in carrying the gun. That means the decision to pull the trigger must have been reckless, not the decision to carry the gun.
How?
Again, for manslaughter, he must have been reckless in deciding to pull the trigger, not reckless in following Martin.
For example, the recklessness in DUI is recklessness in driving the car, not in getting drunk. You are trying to tie it back to non-causational instances of recklessness.
I don't even understand what that means.
That's easy to say in hindsight. Maybe GZ didn't suffer significant head injuries because he shot saint Trayvon before further damage could be inflicted. If he had stuck to your idea of a reasonable response they might still be hosing bits of his brain out of the cracks of that sidewalk.I already stated why he was reckless in discharging his firearm and why it was a reckless decision to start firing.
That's correct if the thug carrying Skittles and iced tea punches you in the face, breaking your nose, then ground and pounds you.If they are on your property and are carrying Skittles and iced tea you can shoot them twice.
Feh. I'm sure Martin was beating his ass, but again, if he heeds the advice of the police then none of this happens.That's correct if the thug carrying Skittles and iced tea punches you in the face, breaking your nose, then ground and pounds you.
I don't think murder is the right call either, manslaughter or another charge...can't say I well versed enough to know what the charge should be. He should not get off scott free though.I no doubt he should have listened to the po-po but that doesn't warrant a murder conviction.
It sounds like he should be charged with being an idiot.
Harassment?I don't think murder is the right call either, manslaughter or another charge...can't say I well versed enough to know what the charge should be. He should not get off scott free though.
Yep...everyone is saying Murder 2 is off the table.The jury just took a recess to ask for clarification on the requirements for manslaughter. I assume that means they're looking at that or nothing.