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.
George Zimmerman was a moron that chased a 17 year old boy through a apartment complex , caught up with him . . . .
No, he didn't. Trayvon went home and came back out and ambushed Zimmerman. Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong, and Trayvon was 100% at fault for getting himself killed after first casing houses as burglary targets and then beating the sh*t out of the guy who saw him doing it. You simply didn't bother to listen to the evidence.
No, he didn't. Trayvon went home and came back out and ambushed Zimmerman. Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong, and Trayvon was 100% at fault for getting himself killed after first casing houses as burglary targets and then beating the sh*t out of the guy who saw him doing it. You simply didn't bother to listen to the evidence.
Yeah and Jesus Christ is a white cat with blue eyes and blonde hair.
And God the father is this old white cat with a big beard and long hair.
This tragic incident clearly shows the shoot first ask questions later mentality of stand your ground trend growing around the US. It appears the justice system around the US is progressing backward into the old west.
I don't see any evidence of legit self-defense in this situation(As the black man wasn't trying to attack the officer at all) and a number of other situations where stand your ground made it difficult to impossible to investigate killers or vigilantes. Its not necessarily the legislation itself but the way its applied that is what the scary part. As according to legislation even in stand your ground(and castle doctrine) states you may not use force particularly deadly force unless you are clearly facing clear bodily injury and as a last resort to terminate such injury. Thus it's not intended to pardon you from preemptively killing a drunk person stumbling into you or your apartment by accident even if he is of color. In other situations, you can only use reasonable force only as necessary to repel an attack or threat.
I be curious what would happen if the black man stumbed into the officer's apartment and killed her and claimed self-defense as the officer is likely toting a gun and would raise it on him. I bet he would get a higher prison sentence. And even if in his own apartment I doubt he would had gotton away scot free either.
I don't really see the need for stand your ground laws as if you are attacked and pinned to the ground and the attacker tries to stab or shoot you but you turned the knife and gun on him than that is a legitimate self-defense claim universally in pretty much all of the country or world.
Apparently, this trend started in Florida when a FEMA worker was searching for water outside was perceived as a threat by someone staying in a FEMA trailor who end up chasing him down. Even the family in which this happened didn't want Stand your ground movement yet it started in Florida and rapidly spread towards 30 other states.
I be curious what will happen if things flipped around and Trayton Martin killed George Zimmerman and claimed to stand your ground self-defense. The whole trend is just a radical solution to a nonexistent problem that would be looking for problems on its own and encourage vigilante justice, its hard to believe people had been killed over movie theatre popcorn and parking spaces since this passed. And just recently a highly unnecessary near-tragedy almost occurred fortunately the owner couldn't access to his gun https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/pa...rnd/index.html I doubt the guy was trying to attack the homeowners just too tired to find the right door. Which is an example is when using force especially lethal force is unjustified. Guns With great power comes with great responsibility should only be used when there is no other way. They teach this in most all martial arts classes too.
It actually does not say that at all.
"Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor."
"Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor."
You're both right.
The distinction is between "force" and "deadly force," and Texas does make that legal distinction.
You can use "force" to protect your property, but not "deadly force."
But if when you use force to protect your property, the assailant than threatens your person--you can use "deadly force" to protect your person.
If you shout "Get off my lawn!" and he comes at you with an iron pipe in his hands, you'll be legally clear to shoot him.
If you shout "Get off my lawn," and then shoot him in the back as he's running away, you're likely to be in trouble.
{shrug} not sure why y'all want to continue to beat a dead horse. Sometimes the jury gets it wrong (OJ, this case) and most times the jury gets it right (Zimmerman, for example).
As I remember, the prosecution asked her if she went in with the intention to kill and she answered, "yes." So, yeah if I were on the jury, that would have done it.
That also did it for me when a sworn law enforcement officer finds somebody in theirs apartment unlawfully , they are supposed to hold them at gunpoint until other officers arrived.
If a LEO feels that they are capable enough to make the arrest along , and take suspect into custody without others officers , then that is theirs prerogative to do so without being totally dedicated to killing suspect.
As I remember, the prosecution asked her if she went in with the intention to kill and she answered, "yes." So, yeah if I were on the jury, that would have done it.
I just wasted an hour trying to find such testimony. Maybe it is there...but if so it eludes me. Kindly cite a source where it can be found.
If she really said that she should have been sent up for far longer. But I still do not find it credible.
The defense knew of Joshua Brown's criminal history, but they declined to bring it up at trial because they thought his testimony would help Amber Guyger.
"Not sure how someone walks into the wrong apartment"
It's easy when they all look alike.
It is NOT uncommon for people to attempt or do walk into the wrong HOUSE.
In development communities the houses all look alike and it is very easy to get the WRONG one.
Common sense IS lacking a lot on here!
Here's the kicker a lot of the apartments can look exactly alike from the outside , but once inside not one single apartment is furnished exactly alike.
So how can you think that you are in your apartment and shoot somebody?
Her legal representation failed to achieve its goal. I was not impressed by it at all.
Robert Shapiro got a trial moved. Hers did not. Many legal analysts will say venue matters most.
BBM. I tend to agree. Look at the Rodney King trial. The defense got the trial moved to Simi Valley, which is mostly white and very pro-police. A not guilty verdict was the result.
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.
