Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Makes a big difference. Itshows Trayvon wasn't the brutal thug some are trying to paint him as. You take a bottle or can as big as that and slap someone upside the head and they will go down. Some keep saying that Trayvon snuck up on Zimmy and waylaid him. Were i the one i would have used the can/bottle as a weapon. Zimmy's father says Zimmy said that Trayvon beat him for at least a minute. Trayvons cell call ended at 2/3:16 am(i don't remember whether it was 2 am or 3 am). And was it and a minute later the cops were there. Timeline problem here as well.
The moral of this would be: kill dead someone you are attacking so that the SYG law will not apply to any effort the deceased made to protect himself.
Yes, it's possible that in this case the SYG law was abused, or does not even apply. But what about when people actually are attacked and have a legitimate fear for their life, should they be allowed to defend themselves with having to worry about going to prison or being sued, or should they just die?
Had he split, the cops would have ended up shooting GZ to kill upon apprehending him. With vehicles like America's Most Wanted which would no doubt have been used if he fled, it would simply mean his life ended in a flash. Now I do not object to saving 20-30 years of his room and board, mind you, but fleeing would have been the same as suicide for GZ.
a guilty man would flee. an innocent man would stand trial to prove himself. let's hope he can afford excellent lawyers.
so if I tried to rob you at gunpoint and you fight back (under SYG) to the point that you're now in a dominant position, I'm within my rights to shoot you, under syg?
This is why the SYG law needs to be repealed. Another Bush blunder!
Yes, it's possible that in this case the SYG law was abused, or does not even apply. But what about when people actually are attacked and have a legitimate fear for their life, should they be allowed to defend themselves with having to worry about going to prison or being sued, or should they just die?
SYG is an extension of the castle doctrine. basic self defense laws applies.
The judge decided to move forward with the case. The prosecution says that TM was scared and that GZ confronted him. Being in fear of his life was reason enough for TM to use force to defend himself. The GZ supporters keep saying there is nothing wrong with following people. The law basically says that if a person believes that he/she believes that his life is in danger, he/she can use deadly force to defend it. Why wouldn't TM think his life was in danger, when he was followed by a strange man in a car and then on foot? I certainly would.
By the way, would those of you who keep saying that nothing is wrong with following people want some old man following your 8 year old daughter around?
a guilty man would flee. an innocent man would stand trial to prove himself. let's hope he can afford excellent lawyers.
I have faith justice will prevail, and for now the streets are safer without this lune being armed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
