Zimmerman Martin Case
- Thread starter ChristophB
- Start date
meamyselfandI1
Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 51
- 0
- 6
As long as they were justifiable and right then I have no problem with it.
Maybe people were afraid to defend themselves before. Maybe the criminal dead have increased and the victim death has decreased.
Maybe people were afraid to defend themselves before. Maybe the criminal dead have increased and the victim death has decreased.
STOPCHILDABUSE
New member
- Mar 21, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 1
Because you have no right to rob or attack anyone, if you end up forfeiting your life because you tried to make someone your victim then it your fault.
So in the end the person (the intended victim) comes out on top and the criminal loses as it should be.
So in the end the person (the intended victim) comes out on top and the criminal loses as it should be.
dutchbride
New member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
Yeah, save the trial for after the funeral.
Retroactive civil rights.
Retroactive civil rights.
if someone robs you, does that mean you can kill him? i'm just wondering where you draw the line. what about if someone bumps your car? death? what about if someone cuts in front of you in line?
if some guy comes into your home to steal your tv, and you catch him, death?
what about if someone is driving, doesn't see you crossing the street and is about to run you over? kill 'em?
if some guy comes into your home to steal your tv, and you catch him, death?
what about if someone is driving, doesn't see you crossing the street and is about to run you over? kill 'em?
If you leave people alone then your chances of being the bad guy and getting shot (justifiably) are very small.
If you believe in the curling into a fetal position self-defense then fine but my rule is don’t try to make me a victim and you won’t reap the consequences.
If you believe in the curling into a fetal position self-defense then fine but my rule is don’t try to make me a victim and you won’t reap the consequences.
It comes down to threaten intended violence.
If you try to strong arm rob someone then they should be able to shoot you (strong arm is robbery by force).
If you force (break into) your way into my home or auto (while I in it) the very act of forcing your way in is an assault and I should be able to shoot you.
If you try to strong arm rob someone then they should be able to shoot you (strong arm is robbery by force).
If you force (break into) your way into my home or auto (while I in it) the very act of forcing your way in is an assault and I should be able to shoot you.
CanAlwaysWait
New member
- Apr 4, 2008
- 18
- 0
- 1
Not being a US citizen, I'm unclear how SYG laws make those situations more just than how self-defence was dealt with previously.
How have SYG laws improved things for citizens?
How have SYG laws improved things for citizens?
honestly, you disgust me.
there was just a case in wisconsin where a young boy, fleeing the police who had broken up a party he was at, found himself inside the screened-in porch of a next door neighbor. said neighbor shot the boy under the castle doctrine law. and according to that law, perfectly justifiable, even though that boy was no threat whatsoever. he was hiding because the same neighbor had called the cops on the party because it was too loud.
there was just a case in wisconsin where a young boy, fleeing the police who had broken up a party he was at, found himself inside the screened-in porch of a next door neighbor. said neighbor shot the boy under the castle doctrine law. and according to that law, perfectly justifiable, even though that boy was no threat whatsoever. he was hiding because the same neighbor had called the cops on the party because it was too loud.
You are not required to retreat if attacked before using deadly force and if the person is committing certain crimes you are authorized deadly force to stop this.
This puts the power back into the victim’s side as well as in most case protect them criminally and civilly.
This puts the power back into the victim’s side as well as in most case protect them criminally and civilly.
You realize that those rulings are to shield a police department that cannot respond to a call, from lawsuits right?
It does not mean that the police can just ignore your call, but that if all officers are on other calls, you may not get answered and you can't sue the department.
It does not mean that the police can just ignore your call, but that if all officers are on other calls, you may not get answered and you can't sue the department.
MiCkIeFoReVeR
New member
- Feb 17, 2008
- 13
- 0
- 1
"i never killed nobody, that didn't have it coming."
jennapw
New member
- Mar 6, 2008
- 23
- 0
- 1
Technically he was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. The difference is that a guilty verdict requires evidence, and an innocent verdict (if such a thing existed) would also require evidence. All that the verdict in this trial means is that there was insufficient evidence to render a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, when has a ruling ever meant "done"? There are debates after pretty much every major case in any country. Juries are fallible, judges are fallible, police are fallible, law itself is fallible. It's only natural to question whether the right verdict has been reached if your personal views are strongly opposed to the outcome.
Also, when has a ruling ever meant "done"? There are debates after pretty much every major case in any country. Juries are fallible, judges are fallible, police are fallible, law itself is fallible. It's only natural to question whether the right verdict has been reached if your personal views are strongly opposed to the outcome.
sheloves_dablues
Member
- Mar 27, 2008
- 52
- 0
- 6
and here I thought we were the only forum NOT talking about this.
Anyways, with the verdict in , Aaron Hernandez' lawyers are optimistic about getting A.H. off on all counts.
Anyways, with the verdict in , Aaron Hernandez' lawyers are optimistic about getting A.H. off on all counts.
I might have watched too many American 'cop soaps' but I always thought that American police took an oath to 'protect & serve' and assumed that meant to protect and serve the general population.
Also if its the first duty of the individual to be a their own responder, how does this apply to people who are unable to protect themselves? (children, disabled)
Do the police have no duty to protect them?
Also if its the first duty of the individual to be a their own responder, how does this apply to people who are unable to protect themselves? (children, disabled)
Do the police have no duty to protect them?