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

killing Trayvon - Page 152

post #2266 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsstillmatt View Post

You suck, Grizzly Bear.
never said i did not.
post #2267 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

never said i did not.
You are not the grizzly bear, and I like you, dude.
post #2268 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

i was wrong on my interpretation of the sit the first time.. but to say actively following someone is the same as simply walking behind them (the former being the case here) is simply stupid. if by chance you are walking down on the sidewalk and some one just incidentally is going the same way that would be ok, but if you have been ever followed you have different feeling one does feel threatened. I cannot explain it in detail but it is very distinctive.

Ahh the old Spidey Sense tingling defense.
post #2269 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

i was wrong on my interpretation of the sit the first time.. but to say actively following someone is the same as simply walking behind them (the former being the case here) is simply stupid. if by chance you are walking down on the sidewalk and some one just incidentally is going the same way that would be ok, but if you have been ever followed you have different feeling one does feel threatened. I cannot explain it in detail but it is very distinctive.

What you are describing is the prey predator response and it is very real.

6 responses and only one on topic. That might be a record for CE. LOL. Oh wait I'm wrong, I've seen pages of you suck responses in some other threaks.
post #2270 of 6250
Related to "Stand your ground?"

Where are Al and Jesse on this one? This lady needs help and seems to deserve it!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

The poor woman really seems like she is getting railroaded. Probably because she didn't take the 3 year offer of course.

Another good link that brings up more questions about "stand your ground", and the woman's case.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/os-stand-your-ground-jacksonville-20120511,0,1255590.story
Edited by rnoldh - 5/12/12 at 9:34pm
post #2271 of 6250
I just finished reading about that. Only in Florida!
post #2272 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Related to "Stand your ground?"
Where are Al and Jesse on this one? This lady needs help and seems to deserve it!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
The poor woman really seems like she is getting railroaded. Probably because she didn't take the 3 year offer of course.
Another good link that brings up more questions about "stand your ground", and the woman's case.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/os-stand-your-ground-jacksonville-20120511,0,1255590.story

The woman is convicted of attempted murder and the news reports "warning shots"? That's the media we all know and love!
post #2273 of 6250
Oh, nevermind, apparently no one disputes that she really wasn't trying to shoot him when she fired the shots (although her claims of self-defense were obviously rejected by the jury).

So she got mad during a fight, ran and grabbed the gun, came back and threatened him with it, and fired a shot in his direction--20 years? Ugh.

I don't think this says anything about mandatory minimums in general, but this particular one is overly broad since the mandatory minimum applies any time a shot is fired instead of any time a shot is fired at someone, which is pretty obviously what was intended. And the whole situation could have been avoided with a little prosecutorial discretion, but, go figure, this is the same lady who decided to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder.

In my state, judges sometimes disregard mandatory sentencing laws and as far as I can tell, nothing ever happens.
post #2274 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The woman is convicted of attempted murder and the news reports "warning shots"? That's the media we all know and love!

There is no such thing as a warning shot. That's another myth that stems predominately from TV dramas. You can argue until you're blue in the face but if you purposely fire a weapon in the direction of another it's not hard to take that as attempted murder. How is it that someone can claim a stand your ground defense when they left the home, retrieved a firearm and then went back to the home to confront an individual? This is another example of ignorance of the law and it's consequences. It's also another example of poor media coverage. Nothing new there, it's all spun up as usual.

Back to CCW....

Florida is a State where a simple firearms safety course, hunter's ed course, honorable discharge from the military and a scorecard from some type of shooting match qualifies you for a CCW permit. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? IMO there is nothing wrong with the stand your ground law. The real problem is the lack of a mandatory course specifically designed for CCW licensing. Our class consists of 8 to 10 hours of instruction. The legal presentation is about 3 to 4 hours long and is handled by a certified instructor who is also a lawyer. In our case it's the same lawyer who helped write the CCW laws that we currently have. We go through firearms safety and everyone has to shoot qualifying rounds with both a semi automatic and a revolver. There's more but all of it pertains to CCW. The instructors are all certified by the State. The course syllabus is approved at the county level by the Sheriff's department in each county where we teach the class. After successful completion of the course you receive the documents that you must present to the Sheriff's dept. in order to proceed with getting your permit.

As much as you hate to admit it Ataturk I am an expert pertaing to things involving CCW. In my State if someone with a CCW permit gets involved in an act of using a firearm the instructor/s who taught that person are almost always contacted by both the prosecutor and the individual's attorney.

If memory serves me Utah is another State where getting a CCW permit is similiar to the requirements Florida has.

Ataturk, you said you received no formal training whatsoever to get your CCW. What State do you hail from?
post #2275 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh, nevermind, apparently no one disputes that she really wasn't trying to shoot him when she fired the shots (although her claims of self-defense were obviously rejected by the jury).
So she got mad during a fight, ran and grabbed the gun, came back and threatened him with it, and fired a shot in his direction--20 years? Ugh.
I don't think this says anything about mandatory minimums in general, but this particular one is overly broad since the mandatory minimum applies any time a shot is fired instead of any time a shot is fired at someone, which is pretty obviously what was intended. And the whole situation could have been avoided with a little prosecutorial discretion, but, go figure, this is the same lady who decided to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder.
In my state, judges sometimes disregard mandatory sentencing laws and as far as I can tell, nothing ever happens.

I've always wondered about this. What would the remedy be? Would the State file a mandamus action in an appeals court? I'm assuming there is some kind of procedure or the law would be meaningless.

Anyway, I don't see how you get attempted murder if nobody disputes she wasn't trying to kill him. Aggravated assault seems more like it, although you can get 20 for that too.
post #2276 of 6250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

There is no such thing as a warning shot. That's another myth that stems predominately from TV dramas. You can argue until you're blue in the face but if you purposely fire a weapon in the direction of another it's not hard to take that as attempted murder. How is it that someone can claim a stand your ground defense when they left the home, retrieved a firearm and then went back to the home to confront an individual? This is another example of ignorance of the law and it's consequences. It's also another example of poor media coverage. Nothing new there, it's all spun up as usual.

+1 - you run back into the house to fire a gun in somebodies direction, expectially with kids around, you deserve to rot in jail as far as I am concerned
post #2277 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I've always wondered about this. What would the remedy be? Would the State file a mandamus action in an appeals court? I'm assuming there is some kind of procedure or the law would be meaningless.
Anyway, I don't see how you get attempted murder if nobody disputes she wasn't trying to kill him. Aggravated assault seems more like it, although you can get 20 for that too.

A weapon, in particular a firearm, was involved. It really is that simple.
post #2278 of 6250
a weapon was involved because he was beating her..
post #2279 of 6250
She was convicted of aggravated assault, not attempted murder. That's just typical media sloppiness. It's always one or the other with them.

Anyway, she claimed self-defense, but the jury didn't buy it. According to the husband, she had apparently reconciled with him and convinced him to lie in a deposition to support her defense -- that's where the stuff about him beating her and his other "baby mommas" comes from.

I guess I can see now why they threw the book at her, if that's true.
post #2280 of 6250
Anyway, going back through the thread.

Self-defense, as Novaguy points out, is a complete defense. If kill someone in self-defense, you can't be convicted of any lesser charge, at least not for the actual use of force. Obviously if you were carrying illegally or something like that, you could still be convicted of that. And "imperfect" self-defense isn't really self-defense. It's a partial defense, basically a kind of manslaughter, where the defendant isn't guilty of murder because he genuinely thought self-defense was necessary -- even though the jury finds that objectively speaking, it wasn't necessary. Imperfect self-defense doesn't exist in many states--took about 10 seconds to verify that Flordia doesn't have imperfect self-defense. In my opinion, it's a crummy rule anyway--the best way to know what someone subjectively believes is what the circumstances objectively were. And it invites juries to reach a dumb compromise.

An example of imperfect self-defense in this case would be something like the jury concluding that Zimmerman honestly believed he had to kill Trayvon Martin to protect himself, but a reasonable person would have thought, oh, he's just going to slam my head on the concrete a little and I'm not in any real danger. I doubt imperfect self-defense is what either Piob or Cranes had in mind. It's not some way to punish Zimmerman for putting himself in a position where Martin could attack him.

Anyway, Cranes, I don't disagree with you that "pursuit" is a bad idea. But -- and it's something you seem to do over and over -- you assume that the good ideas you teach are the law. They're not. Pursuit as you've defined it isn't illegal. It doesn't disqualify you from self-defense. There's a lot of things you can do that make it more likely someone will attack you -- follow them, insult them, go to the wrong part of town, whatever. It might be a bad idea, against what you teach in the CCW class, but it's not necessarily going to take away your right to defend yourself.
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