or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 150

post #2236 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Most states don't define who "the aggressor" is--and they sure as hell don't let blowhard CCW instructors do it. The jury is supposed to use common sense.
As far as I know, the ones that do all make it clear that the aggressor is the one who uses or threatens FORCE, not the one who simply sets up the confrontation. In other words, chasing down a fleeing criminal with your gun drawn might make you the aggressor in the subsequent altercation, but following someone on the sidewalk doesn't.

You would be wrong on both counts but that's not surprising.
post #2237 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Most states don't define who "the aggressor" is--and they sure as hell don't let blowhard CCW instructors do it. The jury is supposed to use common sense.
As far as I know, the ones that do all make it clear that the aggressor is the one who uses or threatens FORCE, not the one who simply sets up the confrontation. In other words, chasing down a fleeing criminal with your gun drawn might make you the aggressor in the subsequent altercation, but following someone on the sidewalk doesn't.

but in the case of the stand your ground law it just might be because one has the right to defend yourself if you feel threatened correct? the guy person that is following the person making the person feel threatened would assuredly be the aggressor, not the person that actually strikes first.
post #2238 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

but in the case of the stand your ground law it just might be because one has the right to defend yourself if you feel threatened correct? the guy person that is following the person making the person feel threatened would assuredly be the aggressor, not the person that actually strikes first.

So walking behind someone gives them the right to attack you?
post #2239 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

but in the case of the stand your ground law it just might be because one has the right to defend yourself if you feel threatened correct? the guy person that is following the person making the person feel threatened would assuredly be the aggressor, not the person that actually strikes first.

I live in a stand your ground State. Simply put it means I do not have to make an attempt at retreat before a shot is fired. It does not negate in any way any of the other elements necessary to claim self defense and have it hold up under court scrutiny.
post #2240 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

So walking behind someone gives them the right to attack you?

my bad
post #2241 of 6250
No way is this true.

Seller of Trayvon Martin Gun Range Targets Says They Sold Out in Two Days
"My main motivation was to make money off the controversy," said the seller of a gun range target designed to resemble murdered Florida teen Trayvon Martin in an email to Local 6 reporter Mike DeForest.

The seller remains unidentified despite the correspondence.

The Orlando-based news station says it spotted an ad for the targets — since removed — on a "popular firearms auction website." They feature a black hoodie similar to the one worn by Martin on the night he was shot by self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, along with a drawing of a Skittles bag and a can of iced tea.

The seller is reportedly a supporter of Zimmerman who believes "he is innocent and that he shot a thug."

Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, rejected the support, calling the targets "the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility." He expressed concern that "this type of hatred" is "going to make it more difficult to try this case."

According to the seller, others are much more keen on the item. Though they would not say how many $8 ten-packs were produced, they claim the response has been "overwhelming," and the targets "sold out in 2 days."
post #2242 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

So walking behind someone gives them the right to attack you?

On it's own no. What matters is in what context it happens in.
post #2243 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

On it's own no. What matters is in what context it happens in.

Nope, there is no context where simply walking behind someone gives them the right to attack you.
post #2244 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

This is by far the single biggest myth that we have to deal with in CCW classes. The very act of pursuing/following starts another cycle of confrontation and if it goes wrong claiming you were the victim isn't going to fly. Why? Because this time you're not an innocent party, you're the aggressor. This is one (there are others as well) reason why the police told him to stop his pursuit. I see several other problems as well but they get into areas that are not so well defined.

And yet self defense statutes are strangely absent language referencing "cycles of confrontation."

In other news Cranes still is clueless about the law, its meaning, and application.
post #2245 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

And yet self defense statutes are strangely absent language referencing "cycles of confrontation."
In other news Cranes still is clueless about the law, its meaning, and application.

I frankly don't care enough to analyze Crane's claim further, but as far as "cycles of confrontation" goes, it's actually a good layman's term to describe a lot of the processes in legal analysis, especially in contracts, and, to a lesser extent, torts and criminal law. Yeah, you would never find that particular term in a law treatise or statute, but the legal analysis of it would use somewhat similar terms.
post #2246 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Nope, there is no context where simply walking behind someone gives them the right to attack you.

Wrong, an action can and does have different meanings in different situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

And yet self defense statutes are strangely absent language referencing "cycles of confrontation."
In other news Cranes still is clueless about the law, its meaning, and application.

If I'm so clueless than why don't you enlighten me? My guess is you can't so instead you along with the likes of Ataturk resort to the typical CE way of doing things. Why don't you bother to tell us all about your areas of expertise and then argue from that position? I have a list of questions to ask either one of you.

Are you a CCW instructor?
Are you a CCW holder?
Are you an attorney? If so do you specialize in cases involving CCW incidents? Are you an attorney licensed to practice in the US?
Are you a law enforcement officer?

Let's start there, perhaps you just might be able to validate your I don't know shit position.
post #2247 of 6250
Looks just like him.

Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-Target.jpg

Cranes, do you have an opinion about whether this violates Trayvon Martin's mother's trademark?
post #2248 of 6250
How stupid and ignorant can you get Ataturk? I have a dark sarcastic sense of humor and I find nothing funny about this.

Try answering the questions posed to you above and let's go from there shall we? Of course we all can probably guess what they would be but why don't you humor all of us anyway?
post #2249 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

This is by far the single biggest myth that we have to deal with in CCW classes. The very act of pursuing/following starts another cycle of confrontation and if it goes wrong claiming you were the victim isn't going to fly. Why? Because this time you're not an innocent party, you're the aggressor. This is one (there are others as well) reason why the police told him to stop his pursuit. I see several other problems as well but they get into areas that are not so well defined.

I would acquiesce to your point given that you know more about this than me, but I would argue that it's harder to claim to be an innocent party, not impossible. It would also depend upon the manner and extent to which you "pursued" this person, and it would certainly depend upon what the suspicious person was doing, no? For instance, being black and wearing a hoodie clearly does not qualify as suspicious - and I would certainly agree with you that in this case Zimmerman made a terrible decision. However, had he witnessed Martin doing something that was criminal or borderline criminal, the scenario might be different.
post #2250 of 6250
Not a lawyer and not inside everyone's head but don't forget there are other charges than murder, right? Being armed and following a person, maybe you can still claim self-defense if it all goes bad, but are you beyond any culpability? Could you not get some lesser charge? The option is not "murder or walk;" I think there are some way points in between that could be pretty reasonably applied.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon