• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amazer said:
It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with. In order to have the courts do its job, someone like GZ needs to be prosecuted. Rather simple really.
Click to expand...
Yes, simple, and inanely absurd. Of course it's up to the police and prosecutors to look at the evidence and decide if someone acted in self-defense. Using your logic we should prosecute a woman who kills a man who broke into her house and was trying to rape her, even if the evidence supports her story. Luckily we don't live in that type of a country and never have.
Then your reply "Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them." makes even less sense.

Perhaps you want to try to explain it again?
Click to expand...
Na, perhaps you want to try to read it again.
 
Last edited:
Amazer said:
It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with.
Click to expand...
Actually thinking about it, on second thought, I agree with you and your position makes perfect sense, and I think we should extend it to areas other than self-defense. If I claim someone stole from me, it really shouldn't be up to the prosecution to determine whether or not someone in fact did. They should arrest the person and the court should be tasked with deciding it. Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:
 
a_unique_person said:
If TM knew he had a gun, had been followed by him, TM had reasonable grounds to fear for his life.
Click to expand...
If he knew GZ had a gun why the hell wouldn't he:
1) Mention it to Dee Dee.
2) Get off the phone with Dee Dee and call 911.
3) Run his behind home or anywhere else but towards GZ.
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
Yes, simple, and inanely absurd. Of course it's up to the police and prosecutors to look at the evidence and decide if someone acted in self-defense. Using your logic we should prosecute a woman who kills a man who broke into her house and was trying to rape her, even if the evidence supports her story. Luckily we don't live in that type of a country and never have.

Na, perhaps you want to try to read it again.
Click to expand...

Natural Born Skeptic said:
Actually thinking about it, on second thought, I agree with you and your position makes perfect sense, and I think we should extend it to areas other than self-defense. If I claim someone stole from me, it really shouldn't be up to the prosecution to determine whether or not someone in fact did. They should arrest the person and the court should be tasked with deciding it. Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Those are really the same/identical/similar circumstances as those that GZ was in.

Now I understand that this doesn't come easy to you... but can you at least try to have a constructive discussion? Or do you wish to continue down this path that shuts down all discussion? Not really a mature way to do business but to each his own I guess.
 
Cylinder said:
Luckily for all of us, it is the job of the state to determine to a certain standard of evidence that a crime occurred and who committed it. It is the job of the court, through various procedures to test the evidence to determine if the state acted within the law and the job of the people to determine the evidence presented by the state is strong enough for conviction.
Click to expand...
I think we can tick all the boxes.... that's exactly what's happening (or is going to happen) in this case. No reason to complain, now is there?
 
crimresearch said:
...
So why the comment that Zimmerman shouldn't have the right to resort to deadly force in return?
Click to expand...
Deadly force? An unarmed teenager who may have punched GZ because GZ was following TM and TM was rightly frightened of the guy? I'll say it, GZ had no right to shoot, he could have easily fled.
 
Amazer said:
:rolleyes: Those are really the same/identical/similar circumstances as those that GZ was in.

Now I understand that this doesn't come easy to you... but can you at least try to have a constructive discussion? Or do you wish to continue down this path that shuts down all discussion? Not really a mature way to do business but to each his own I guess.
Click to expand...
Here was your statement:
Amazer said:
It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with. In order to have the courts do its job, someone like GZ needs to be prosecuted. Rather simple really.
Click to expand...
So how is me pointing out that could apply to a woman who killed an attacker in self-defense "not constructive" or "not mature"? However I'll take it since you objected to my comparison as "not constructive" that you're acknowledging that there are circumstances where you're OK with the prosecution deciding that something was self-defense. Which reveals the absurdity of your previous statement that it shouldn't be the job of the prosecution.

So maybe you should reword your original statement to reflect what I suspect you really meant:
It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense when I don't think they did
Click to expand...
Now if you don't think my earlier comments were "constructive" or "mature", then feel free to use some actual arguments to explain the error of my logic to all of us. Do you think a prosecutor should be able to decide not to prosecute a woman who kills someone breaking into her home and attempting to rape her? If you do think a prosecutor should be able to make that determination than please explain to all of us how that doesn't contradict your earlier statement. "Rather simple really" ;).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
An unarmed teenager who may have punched GZ because GZ was following TM and TM was rightly frightened of the guy? I'll say it, GZ had no right to shoot, he could have easily fled.
Click to expand...
How exactly would you suggest he flee if he was sucker punched, and on the ground being pummeled and screaming for help? Lemme guess, he should have fled before that.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
If TM knew he had a gun, had been followed by him, TM had reasonable grounds to fear for his life.
Click to expand...

So if someone attacks you because they mistakening fear for their life, you should not be able to respond with deadly force should you fear for your life during the attack?
 
LTC8K6 said:
There is no duty to retreat from such an attack.

I can't punch you simply because I'm afraid of you because you are following me.
Click to expand...

And as crimresearch has stated over and over, you can not shoot someone just because they punch you.

So now that all the overly simple statements have been made again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom