Zimmerman's lawyers drop him

[soonerwings]

He'll forever be the guy who gunned down a kid in cold blood, regardless if that's what actually occurred or not. If acquitted, I'd be looking for a new country if I were him.

If he's acquitted or the charges are dismissed, I don't know if he has any civil jeopardy. If so, it would be up to a jury to assess his percentage of the blame. While this is a textbook cautionary tale for how to act responsibly when carrying, I think it should also be a cautionary tale for those who would allow the so-called "thug life" to dictate their public actions. It takes everyone to reduce the likelihood of events like this. Having a community at odds with itself doesn't help.

Agreed. There are no winners in this case.

 

[Stephen Cue]

He'll forever be the guy who gunned down a kid in cold blood, regardless if that's what actually occurred or not. If acquitted, I'd be looking for a new country if I were him.

If he's acquitted or the charges are dismissed, I don't know if he has any civil jeopardy. If so, it would be up to a jury to assess his percentage of the blame. While this is a textbook cautionary tale for how to act responsibly when carrying, I think it should also be a cautionary tale for those who would allow the so-called "thug life" to dictate their public actions. It takes everyone to reduce the likelihood of events like this. Having a community at odds with itself doesn't help.

The section I highlighted is a very intersting topic and may be a discussion for another thread, but this is a very emotional subject.

Did Trayvon "dressing the part" of a subculture known for crime/illicit activity play a part in his death?

If a person dresses like a Nazi, do people presume he/she takes part in illicit activity?

Do we allow people to idolize/promote lifestyles and cultures that in-turn promote illicit activity?

Is this thought/freedom control?

Do we have to expect harrasment/assault if we choose a certain style that does not conform to societal norm?

Do any of these questions relate to the Zimm./Martin case?

Maybe this topic is for another thread

 

[soonerwings]

The section I highlighted is a very intersting topic and may be a discussion for another thread, but this is a very emotional subject.

Did Trayvon "dressing the part" of a subculture known for crime/illicit activity play a part in his death?

If a person dresses like a Nazi, do people presume he/she takes part in illicit activity?

Do we allow people to idolize/promote lifestyles and cultures that in-turn promote illicit activity?

Is this thought/freedom control?

Do we have to expect harrasment/assault if we choose a certain style that does not conform to societal norm?

Do any of these questions relate to the Zimm./Martin case?

Maybe this topic is for another thread

The above mentioned topics are worthy of discussion (IMHO) but may end up being short discussions if you don't allow people to brandish their torches and pitchforks. Granted stereotypes exist and can be immensely useful or immensely harmful. The only problem with not dressing like a member of a subculture known for some sort of illicit activity is that pretty soon you'll run out of clothes to wear.

 

[Stephen Cue]

Actually, if you read 76.041, you'll notice that it says that the preceding sections (that would include 776.012 which you're labeling as the whole of SYG) do in fact apply if someone retreats.

Misconception still persists.

Saying that it doesn't apply is pretty much the same thing as saying that you can't use it. As the law clearly states, it does apply.

No, no its not. Here is the ganglion of our misconception.

I'm sorry if you feel "picked on" because I don't agree with your analysis.

LOL, nice tactic. My brothers and I used that technique on each other growing up with much success

I have never done anything but directly quote your posts and have never altered them in any way so you can't exactly claim to be mis-quoted.

Yes, you have posted my direct quotes and did not alter them, but that does not fullly cover the definition of mis-quote. Aside all that and having pretty muched covered our thoughts thoroughly, cheers!

 

[Stephen Cue]

The above mentioned topics are worthy of discussion (IMHO) but may end up being short discussions if you don't allow people to brandish their torches and pitchforks. Granted stereotypes exist and can be immensely useful or immensely harmful. The only problem with not dressing like a member of a subculture known for some sort of illicit activity is that pretty soon you'll run out of clothes to wear.

This is evident with the whole pants falling down style. Who says you cant witness evolution in action.

 

[Glocktogo]

The section I highlighted is a very intersting topic and may be a discussion for another thread, but this is a very emotional subject.

Did Trayvon "dressing the part" of a subculture known for crime/illicit activity play a part in his death?

If a person dresses like a Nazi, do people presume he/she takes part in illicit activity?

Do we allow people to idolize/promote lifestyles and cultures that in-turn promote illicit activity?

Is this thought/freedom control?

Do we have to expect harrasment/assault if we choose a certain style that does not conform to societal norm?

Do any of these questions relate to the Zimm./Martin case?

Maybe this topic is for another thread

You can look the part all you want. You can act the part all you want, right up until you interact with someone in a manner not in keeping with societal norms. You can still do it, but may reap negative consequences as a result. Your rights end where my nose begins and all that is what I meant.

 

[Cue]

Actually, if you read 76.041, you'll notice that it says that the preceding sections (that would include 776.012 which you're labeling as the whole of SYG) do in fact apply if someone retreats.



Saying that it doesn't apply is pretty much the same thing as saying that you can't use it. As the law clearly states, it does apply.

I

I'm sorry if you feel "picked on" because I don't agree with your analysis. I have never done anything but directly quote your posts and have never altered them in any way so you can't exactly claim to be mis-quoted.

You are missing the point. SYG is to protect people who feel they do not need to retreat. What Stephen is saying is that he tried to retreat. So SYG was not used. If that is the case then all of this is an attack on the SYG law by the media when it is totally irrelevant to this case.

Stephen and I teach this in our classes. If you retreat and are still attacked then you have more rights to defend yourself with deadly force because you do not have to meet for with force. With SYG, you have to meet force with for up to and including deadly force. If a single person attacks with with only his fists, you can only defend yourself with only fists while standing your ground. If you elevate the situation to a deadly force scenario, you did not follow SYG because you became the aggressor outside the protection of the law. If you attempt to retreat and an aggressor continues to attack you, it is obvious that he intends to cause great bodily harm and or death. So by law you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force.

Does this make what he was trying to say clear?

 

[Stephen Cue]

You can look the part all you want. You can act the part all you want, right up until you interact with someone in a manner not in keeping with societal norms. You can still do it, but may reap negative consequences as a result. Your rights end where my nose begins and all that is what I meant.

Justice Holmes, and you may not believe this but I did not have to google that.

 

[soonerwings]

Yes, you have posted my direct quotes and did not alter them, but that does not fullly cover the definition of mis-quote. Aside all that and having pretty muched covered our thoughts thoroughly, cheers!

My apologies, I forgot to mention that I didn't take you out of context either. You are correct, non-alteration of direct quotes does not fully cover mis-quoting.

Cheers? What's to drink? I just bought a bottle of rye whiskey (I've never had a rye whiskey before) that I've been wanting to try.

 

[Stephen Cue]

You are missing the point. SYG is to protect people who feel they do not need to retreat. What Stephen is saying is that he tried to retreat. So SYG was not used. If that is the case then all of this is an attack on the SYG law by the media when it is totally irrelevant to this case.

Stephen and I teach this in our classes. If you retreat and are still attacked then you have more rights to defend yourself with deadly force because you do not have to meet for with force. With SYG, you have to meet force with for up to and including deadly force. If a single person attacks with with only his fists, you can only defend yourself with only fists while standing your ground. If you elevate the situation to a deadly force scenario, you did not follow SYG because you became the aggressor outside the protection of the law. If you attempt to retreat and an aggressor continues to attack you, it is obvious that he intends to cause great bodily harm and or death. So by law you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force.

Does this make what he was trying to say clear?

All I was trying to say is that when retreating, standing your ground was standing when not retreating and fleeing when not standing ones ground. The fleeing in regards to retreating was not standing your ground when confronting a threat when retreating to a standing your ground position.