Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) Be consistent, you already established yourself that you were taking a kid. Oh christ. fine, i picked the kid up, i'm not running away like a mad man and i'd stop if someone asked me questions. If you are standing in a playground and you see me pickup a kid it's not reasonable to just shoot me without trying to find out what's going on. That doesn't change my point. Edited March 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) What you would do with the child isn't really the question. What someone might do is. You can't say "well I would act this way" and negate the entire hypothetical. But if you reasonably believed that there was a kidnapping in progress, you'd be legally good to shoot to kill And the teacher is legally required to report that and others are legally required to investigate. Not sure what it really has to do with SYG laws, though! Hey, you can DO anything you want. Whether or not 12 people think it was legally warranted is an entirely different question. And i meant for that to be an example about how kids say some crazy s***. It's not really reasonable to rely on what a kid is screaming on a playground as a basis to shoot someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) Hey, you can DO anything you want. Whether or not 12 people think it was legally warranted is an entirely different question. And i meant for that to be an example about how kids say some crazy s***. It's not really reasonable to rely on what a kid is screaming on a playground as a basis to shoot someone. Ok then you can never really determine if it's a kidnapping since "the little brat is just lying, he doesn't want to come home for dinner." At what point does it become reasonable to assume that a forcible felony is going on and for you to draw a weapon to stop it? Why do we want individuals with minimal training doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 and make sure you're packing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Jenks, The difference is protection the law affords. In Illinois they would clearly charge and let the facts settle it out. In Florida the law puts up a barrier for the police to even charge me. The entire point Im making, is that this is all subjective and based on facts. Why you would ever prevent the police from charging someone and doing a full investigation is mind blowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Jenks, The difference is protection the law affords. In Illinois they would clearly charge and let the facts settle it out. In Florida the law puts up a barrier for the police to even charge me. The entire point Im making, is that this is all subjective and based on facts. Why you would ever prevent the police from charging someone and doing a full investigation is mind blowing. Just because the cops and the county prosecutors failed to do their jobs until it became a national story doesn't make the law bad. That's ridiculous. There's nothing in that law that says "if someone claims self defense stop all investigation and believe them without question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Just because the cops and the county prosecutors failed to do their jobs until it became a national story doesn't make the law bad. That's ridiculous. There's nothing in that law that says "if someone claims self defense stop all investigation and believe them without question." It says presume they acted in self-defense unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Ok then you can never really determine if it's a kidnapping since "the little brat is just lying, he doesn't want to come home for dinner." At what point does it become reasonable to assume that a forcible felony is going on and for you to draw a weapon to stop it? Why do we want individuals with minimal training doing this? Why do we want criminals to get away with crimes without fear that people are willing to defend themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Milkman, As Ive said, I dont care about this case at all. Its just a way to try and get my broader agenda across. For all I know Zimmerman acted completely in his rights. I just dont think he should have had those rights in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) It says presume they acted in self-defense unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. And given that he was tailing the guy and essentially starting a fight, and the call from the gf saying he was being followed - I don't buy that his story is 100% accurate. So I would have brought him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) And given that he was tailing the guy and essentially starting a fight, and the call from the gf saying he was being followed - I don't buy that his story is 100% accurate. So I would have brought him in. Well they did bring him in and interview him. They then released him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) I understand your point and why you're arguing what you are. But isn't that also what you wanted? The police brought it to the DA and he decided not to press charges. No, because what he wanted was for charges to be pressed. Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 What he wants is for the law to be different than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Well they did bring him in and interview him. They then released him. That doesn't mean it's over. Hell, I'm sure he gets arrested any day now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation? Call the police because, you know, it's their job...why the f*** have cops if we are gonna do their jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) Call the police because, you know, it's their job...why the f*** have cops if we are gonna do their jobs? and the true motivations are revealed!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 No that is just a convenient fact to latch on to to further support the agenda. Most people who are pro-syg, pro-c&c are also pro-police, pro-arrest. So this case conveniently gave me an opportunity where I could try and use certain facts to get people who otherwise may support c&c and syg on my side. I dont care what happens to Zimmerman or this case (as callous as that may sound), people die every day due to shootings, you dont get a ton of press for it. Most of the time those shootings dont present a chance to attack a theory of law that you strongly disagree with. This one did. You know the case is messed up when the normal players on the opposite sides of where they generally would be. My guess is that 99% of my posts involving police, etc are in support of the defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) The cops aren't magic and aren't always within a close proximity. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Better to confront people with loaded firearms when a crime isn't even being committed then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Better to rely on an outlier to prove that guns are dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) Better to rely on an outlier to prove that guns are dangerous. "Remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do." (I've been waiting for the opportune moment to pull that one out. Thanks!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) "Remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do." (I've been waiting for the opportune moment to pull that one out. Thanks!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) You've obviously read none of this thread. Not all of it but enough to see some really goofy posts, including some of yours. Let's blame the victim! Doesn't Martin have the right to SYG? Some creepy guy kept following him around while he was trying to get away...seems like he has a right to defend himself, too. Edited March 27, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 These f***ers always get away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) These f***ers always get away Any reasonable person would understand that's not a gangsta hoodie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts