Zimmerman juror calls for change in self-defence laws

reply to post by luciddream


One, I want to know if this juror is the "non-white" one.

Two, who would we WANT to charge someone with a crime for defending their life?

The issue isn't self defense laws; it's people thinking that some should get away with anything, and using various excuses for bad behavior.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by luciddream

 

One, I want to know if this juror is the "non-white" one.

Two, who would we WANT to charge someone with a crime for defending their life?

The issue isn't self defense laws; it's people thinking that some should get away with anything, and using various excuses for bad behavior.

juror b-37 is white.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Ok, so that answers the first question. I thought she was.

So, why does she believe, I wonder, that self defense is a bad thing? If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

That's the thing that bugs me. It's blaming the actual victim (George Zimmerman) for the crime, because he didn't die, or end up in the hospital.

reply to post by luciddream


I don't think the outcome could be different. There were three for acquit, one for murder 2, and two for manslaughter, but after reading the law and some convincing they had to acquit.

As for this woman? She's an idiot. She said she believed Trayvon attacked, Zimmerman was on his back, where/how would he retreat? Basically since I couldn't find him guilty we should change the law so future people won't go free for defending themselves. We need to put this ridiculous thing behind us (he was always innocent and it should have never been in the news and there should have been no trial) and get back to the Obama admin scandals and the NSA PRISM scandal. It was such a convenient month long distraction. Now back to the important stuff.

Also, I have noticed they are trying to turn Trayvon into some kind of civil rights figure which is ridiculous, but I have wondered.. if some crazy racist killed Zimmerman what would happen? If they found a way to have another trial (as they are considering and obviously for the sole purpose of convicting) then do the rest of us stand up and protest? I think that's what they want and need to keep the focus off the corruption.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Ok, so that answers the first question. I thought she was.

So, why does she believe, I wonder, that self defense is a bad thing? If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

That's the thing that bugs me. It's blaming the actual victim (George Zimmerman) for the crime, because he didn't die, or end up in the hospital.

That's quite true. This issue of this case should not be about self defense laws (even though the usual suspects in Washington are trying to make it a case to harm self defense) the issue of the case was that there was not enough evidence to convict GZ beyond a reasonable doubt. Either he defended himself from an attack or he didn't and the jury thought it was the latter.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


What if the Juror is "non-white"? does that mean they are biased? this can be said about the other 4 as well.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

yes it would make seen if some random teen, unprovoked came and attacked me. But if i was following a Teen, under the suspicion that he is "up to no good"... then cause the person to get panicked and attack the follower, then the follower killed them, that would be something else.

Maybe someone with your mindset like letting some men follow you around. I for one would fight back. That is myself defense.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Provoking than calling defense is not the right way. It is just more loop holes to abuse.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
But it wasn't a SYG law, it was a self-defense law.

I know that. But here are the juror's words:

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.

Source

Originally posted by luciddream

Maybe someone with your mindset like letting some men follow you around.

I for one would fight back. That is myself defense.

So you'd just turn and attack someone who may or may not be following you?

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not you were being followed?

Assault is serious. You dont want to turn and start beating someone only to discover he wasnt following you.

I find this mentality very interesting since I cannot relate to this drive so many apparently have to start punching and beating another human being who is not attacking me.

Oh, I'm still waiting for your ideas on how to fix the system and all those cases where a clear murderer got off claiming self-defense you keep talking about.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

So you'd just turn and attack someone who may or may not be following you?

So some reason TM found out Zimmerman was indeed following him? how did that happen, was TM a psychic?

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not you were being followed? Assault is serious.

You can't tell the difference between someone going in the same direction and someone following you? eye contacts often is very telling.. like i previously mentioned... either TM was a psychic or GZ didn't bother hiding the fact he was following him because he had a weapon.

You don't want to turn and start beating someone only to discover he wasn't following you.

Of course not, first i need to find out if they are following me for sure, like TM did.

I find this mentality very interesting since I cannot relate to this drive so many apparently have to start punching and beating another human being who is not attacking me.

I cannot find the mentality its okay to follow someone, make person suspicious enough to fight for their privacy, then kill them because they are too strong and you are a coward.

*you = general, not directed*

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What's the loophole, that people cant assault assholes and get away with it?

Why are so many people totally okay with fist fights breaking out left and right? Is this really a normal part of everyday life for so many people?

Folks don't realize or know that we went this rout for years. We gave the "criminal" ever possible option and way out. Folks were getting charged with returning fire over public safety concerns ect ect for example. Folks got sick of all the red tape that insured the victim would be the one at fault.

As a result, over the last 10 years and better, laws have shifted to the clear favor of the would be victimized. Gun carry permits now legal and wide open as never before in many states are the result of years of innocent citizens being at the mercy of assailants.

In my state there are currently 300,000 CC permits with a back log of applicants. In 5 years there will probably be over 1mill CC permit holders.

In addition gun use laws, even without a CC permit, in self defense cases have shifted to the favor of the would be victimized.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


lol they used SYG law to set him free.. yet this is more like follow, provoke and SYG. The judicial system is hilarious.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

So you'd just turn and attack someone who may or may not be following you?

So some reason TM found out Zimmerman was indeed following him? how did that happen, was TM a psychic?

Not sure I understand this.

You can;t difference between someone going in the same direction and someone follow you? eye contacts often is very telling.. like i perviously mentioned... either TM was a psychic or GZ didn't bother hiding the fact he was following him because he had a weapon.

Eye contact with a person behind you? If you're going to turn and attack someone surely you can articulate to me the criteria you would use/require before taking such action clearly.

Of course not, first i need to find out if they are following me for sure, like TM did.

I cannot find the mentality its okay to follow someone, make person suspicious enough to fight for their privacy, then kill them because they are a coward.

So you believe Martin did attack Zimmerman.

I'm not sure what you expected to happen when somebody decides to attack another person. Should a bell have rung and a referee come out?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


So provoking is allowed according to you?


Provoke, engage a in a fight, kill. I see what you mean now.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

So provoking is allowed according to you?


Provoke, engage a in a fight, kill. I see what you mean now.

Not according to me. According to just about every lawful nation on earth.

Somebody can follow me, shout at me, call me names, etc... and as long as there is no threat to my person or property or any hindrance of movement or any contact then there's no crime.

The world outside isnt like some gradeschool playground where name-calling leads to fist fights. We're supposed to be adults here.

And you still have yet to show me all these cases you keep bringing up where people go around picking fights so they can murder. We have one linked earlier where the guy was found guilty of murder for doing just that and we have this Zimmerman case here that may or may not be what you want it to be.

Maybe this is one: Roderick Scott confronted some kids for fiddling with his property and ended up killing an unarmed kid. Surely he should have just waited inside for the police and not gone out looking for a fight?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Provoking is different from following, Provoking the person to engage in fight voids SYG laws and many other rights. If fatality is involved in that case, they would not walk free man.

then again, I don't think GZ is a free man tho... he has to live his life looking back everyday, sad way to live. I think when he killed TM he inherited some traits black people gets profiled for, i think he already had his punishment.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Provoking is different from following, Provoking the person to engage in fight voids SYG laws and many other rights.

Is it or isnt it? Reading a few posts back I get the impression you're trying to connect provocation and Zimmermans following to justify Martins assault.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

If some teen shoved her down and was assaulting her, doesn't she think she should have a right to shoot?

yes it would make seen if some random teen, unprovoked came and attacked me. But if i was following a Teen, under the suspicion that he is "up to no good"... then cause the person to get panicked and attack the follower, then the follower killed them, that would be something else.

Maybe someone with your mindset like letting some men follow you around.

I for one would fight back. That is myself defense.

Being followed is not justification for assault. Calling the police, fleeing, getting of the area, going to a crowded and public area are all reasonable reactions to concern for being followed, but turning around and assaulting someone is not.