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.
If trayvon knew zimmerman had a weapon, would there have been a confrontation of this magnitude?
If they both knew each other had a weapon, would a conversation happened, or would trayvon shot zimmerman instead of punching him in the nose and mounting him?
The second part of the law — “stand your ground” — is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)
Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”
If trayvon knew zimmerman had a weapon, would there have been a confrontation of this magnitude?
If they both knew each other had a weapon, would a conversation happened, or would trayvon shot zimmerman instead of punching him in the nose and mounting him?
If T-man knew Zimmerman had a weapon, it would be totally justified for him to stand his ground and punch Zimmerman though. May not be wise but would be justified.
The second part of the law — “stand your ground†— is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)
Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground†gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.â€
some wild west craziness right there
Yes, and as in this case and many others, that include black on black and white on white, the truth will set you free.... or it could lock you up. Media and public opinion of what the media gate keepers want you to hear, is not justice.
The second part of the law — “stand your ground” — is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)
Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”
some wild west craziness right there
You are making a fool of yourself. Please stop and read Post 5 and 16.
There has NEVER been a duty to retreat unless one could have retreated in complete safety. Please provide one case that you have to kill someone in self defense but you could have just retreated in complete safety.
Yes, and as in this case and many others, that include black on black and white on white, the truth will set you free.... or it could lock you up. Media and public opinion of what the media gate keepers want you to hear, is not justice.
how do you know it's the truth when its coming from the words of a killer? of course he will say it was self defense and possibly make stuff up to stay out of prison
the problem is, you can't hear the other person's story so this law is not working as it was intended, i assume it was intended for honest people, which was naive to say the least
If T-man knew Zimmerman had a weapon, it would be totally justified for him to stand his ground and punch Zimmerman though. May not be wise but would be justified.
That make absolutely no sense?
Can you explain why?
With the angle you are coming at it, it would justify shooting cops that have a gun, because you would feel threatened.
Here in PA before they passed their version you were required to flee if given the opportunity, you could be prosecuted if you didn't.
See the Post above and watch the video.
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.
