Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) This makes no sense with your first point. The case of Treyvon Martin cant go to a judge or jury because the codification of the law made the police believe that they could not arrest Zimmerman. No idea what you are trying to get at here. It's obvious they botched this...so citing a one off case where things went wrong is what you base your entire point on? There are plenty of botched crime scenes non-arrests because people make mistakes. Should we undo all of those laws, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) In court via testimony and evidence? Which you might lose...even though you shouldn't? No thanks. I've sat on jury duty, and trust me when I say you NEVER want to leave it up to a modern jury via testimony and evidence. You're better off having a law that's clearly written you can hide behind than to leave it in the hands of a bunch of people that don't give a s*** about anything other than going home. It was one of the most disappointing and infuriating times of my life how much none of them gave a s***. Edited March 23, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Strangesox, Duty to retreat is messy and just further complicates something that should be pretty easy. If you have a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death, you have the right to defend yourself. Why make it more complicated with duty to retreat? If you do not have a reasonable fear, you cant use deadly force. If you do have a reasonable fear, you can use deadly force. Retreating has nothing to do with the scenario because retreating is nothing more than a persons state of mind, and once again goes back to the same question, was it reasonable to defend yourself. If the trier of fact finds it was not reasonable, IE you were coming at me with a paperclip and I shot you, you dont need the duty to retreat to be codified, because simply put, it was unreasonable to kill you in the first place. Edited March 23, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Where have I said undo all laws? Ive consistently said that this type of law and further codification of question of fact, is stupid. That there is already something like 200-500 years of case law on this point and anyone who deals with it on a pretty consistent basis knows the rules, they dont need some legislature to try and define it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Strangesox, Duty to retreat is messy and just further complicates something that should be pretty easy. If you have a reasonable fear of eminent grave bodily harm or death, you have the right to defend yourself. Why make it more complicated with duty to retreat? If you do not have a reasonable fear, you cant use deadly force. If you do have a reasonable fear, you can use deadly force. Retreating has nothing to do with the scenario because retreating is nothing more than a persons state of mind, and once again goes back to the same question, was it reasonable to defend yourself. If the trier of fact finds it was not reasonable, IE you were coming at me with a paperclip and I shot you, you dont need the duty to retreat to be codified, because simply put, it was unreasonable to kill you in the first place. the way I understand it, and it could be very wrong since I have zero legal training, is that "duty to retreat" gives restrictions under which you have reasonable necessity to use deadly force. If you could have retreated but did not, self-defense isn't justified. With SYG, it is still justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) Where have I said undo all laws? Ive consistently said that this type of law and further codification of question of fact, is stupid. That there is already something like 200-500 years of case law on this point and anyone who deals with it on a pretty consistent basis knows the rules, they dont need some legislature to try and define it better. I didn't say you said to undo all laws. It was just a point that undoing this law because of technicalities could easily mean that there are a billion other laws where we can apply the same logic. It looks like we actually agree, however, in that neither are necessary. I'm not saying this law "needs" to exist...but I know for sure NO law citing the duty to retreat should exist then, either...because it opens room for error in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 By the way, Geraldo has doubled-down on his blame-the-victim stance in a follow-up column. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/.../#ixzz1pxSySChX This is the exact same terrible argument that those sluttly sluts wouldn't have been raped if they didn't dress so slutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) the way I understand it, and it could be very wrong since I have zero legal training, is that "duty to retreat" gives restrictions under which you have reasonable necessity to use deadly force. If you could have retreated but did not, self-defense isn't justified. With SYG, it is still justified. And my point from earlier, how are you supposed to know this? If you could know it with absolute 100% certainty, I'd agree with you. But I don't see how you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) By the way, Geraldo has doubled-down on his blame-the-victim stance in a follow-up column. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/.../#ixzz1pxSySChX This is the exact same terrible argument that those sluttly sluts wouldn't have been raped if they didn't dress so slutty. Geraldo is trying to play the peacekeeper here since neither of them is a white guy. While I shouldn't do this...I will anyway. If one of them was white, Geraldo would be placing 100% of the blame on them instead of doing what he's doing now with the shared blame garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) Geraldo is trying to play the peacekeeper here since neither of them is a white guy. While I shouldn't do this...I will anyway. If one of them was white, Geraldo would be placing 100% of the blame on them instead of doing what he's doing now with the shared blame garbage. Geraldo is playing giant blame-the-victim dummy who is also apparently completely oblivious to how ubiquitous hoodies are in all segments of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Geraldo is playing giant blame-the-victim dummy who is also apparently completely oblivious to how ubiquitous hoodies are in all segments of society. To be fair, he's not just blaming the victim...he's blaming both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 NO law citing the duty to retreat should exist then, either...because it opens room for error in the courts. I agree with this 100%. Duty to retreat does not make sense. First of all it suggests that people are aware of the law and are going to think rationally when being put in a life or death situation. Let alone the complication of trying to instruct a jury on the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Ignorance of the law is no excuse, good sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, good sir. If it's something obvious, I'd agree...but ignorance of the law is pretty common these days...there is no way around is because there are so many laws. 90%+ of laws in your state, I guarantee you've never heard of or read...but I assure you they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Ignorance of the law isnt an excuse, which is why we should strive to remove unnecessary laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Right but that's still not a defense against breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Right but that's still not a defense against breaking the law. And they did that on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Because anyone could claim "but judge, I didn't know!"? I can't imagine a functional legal system where ignorance is a legit defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Because anyone could claim "but judge, I didn't know!"? I can't imagine a functional legal system where ignorance is a legit defense. No, that part makes perfect sense...but the politicians realized that they could just create crazy obscure laws on top of laws on top of laws and make it impossible for people to be aware of all the laws. That's what they did on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 This wouldn't apply to this situation because Zimmerman was licensed for concealed carry and that would presumably include education on the relevant laws and statutes or at least easily could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) Rex, Imo police should enforce the law, not interpret it. When I say this, I mean that they should not be put in this position: Why put it on the police? There is no reason a quick decision has to be made. This isnt "probable cause" when it comes to breaking down a door or looking for a criminal, where time is of the essence. The law should have put it in the DA's hands of whether they ultimately prosecute. There is no good reason (that I can think of), to prohibit the police from charging someone who admits to killing another person, and then waiting to see what facts come out. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. The kid was never on this guy's property. He was doing nothing but walking while black. At this point we have a 911 call where he refers to a black kid as "those people", in the same call he follows someone who was never a direct threat to him who is running away from him, there are reports that he also used a racial slur at the time it happened, phone records indicating that the kid was on the phone with his girlfriend, and shot the kid 70 feet from the kid's parent's house. If the situation were turned and Trayvon was the person that killed Zimmerman, do you honestly think that we would be having this debate right now? At the very least, he'd be charged with manslaughter, if not murder. We have a police department that essentially chose not to investigate until the attention got too loud. There's a whole lot that's wrong with this case, and the first thing is that a man who shot an unarmed kid who wasn't on his property and wasn't actually bothering him is not currently behind bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Which you might lose...even though you shouldn't? No thanks. I've sat on jury duty, and trust me when I say you NEVER want to leave it up to a modern jury via testimony and evidence. You're better off having a law that's clearly written you can hide behind than to leave it in the hands of a bunch of people that don't give a s*** about anything other than going home. It was one of the most disappointing and infuriating times of my life how much none of them gave a s***. This is probably a different discussion entirely but you touched on a definite problem. When I got called last year I so badly wanted to just say that my whole motivation was to get out of there as quickly as possible. Luckily I was able to come up with a different excuse and they didn't pick me. If I was able to receive my regular day's pay I would have been more inclined to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Which you might lose...even though you shouldn't? No thanks. I've sat on jury duty, and trust me when I say you NEVER want to leave it up to a modern jury via testimony and evidence. You're better off having a law that's clearly written you can hide behind than to leave it in the hands of a bunch of people that don't give a s*** about anything other than going home. It was one of the most disappointing and infuriating times of my life how much none of them gave a s***. You mean it's not like 12 Angry Men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) From people's reactions and what I read initially, I assumed Zimmerman was some retired old white guy not 28 and Hispanic. The evil whitey side of his heritage did the shooting. The Hispanic part was just an innocent bystander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 What a retarded law, this scumbag just might get away with murder. SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts