Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
The law that allows an armed man to chase anyone they please for any reason they please even after being told it isn't a good idea.
No such law exists.
Ishmael
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The law that allows an armed man to chase anyone they please for any reason they please even after being told it isn't a good idea.
No such law exists.
Ishmael
The recent case of Florida v Zimmerman says otherwise.
The law that allows an armed man to chase anyone they please for any reason they please even after being told it isn't a good idea.
The recent case of Florida v Zimmerman says otherwise.
No it doesn't, oh maybe in your imagination it does, but only there.
If you are off your property, in public, I can follow you anywhere, anytime. I can confront you as to what you are about as well. You have NO right to privacy while you are in public, none whatsoever. The Supreme Court has already said as much, on numerous occasions.
Even if you are on your property, but in pubic view, you enjoy no particular 'privacy' protection, never did. Christ, even the ancient Greeks were aware of that notion.
Obviously I've monitored this thread and the shit that is flowing through the apologists mind truly amazes me. The nuances of the shades of gray, "if Zimmerman had done this", "I Martin had done that." All those "ifs" add up to nothing, zero.
As you don't see, and apparently the jury did, when you're on your back having you head beaten into the pavement all of those shades of gray disappear. The situation is reduced to a matter of survival and Martin lost that battle. It truly is a black and white situation (and there is NO pun intended there). Basic survival mechanisms kick in that there is no time to contemplate the philosophical, or legal, ramifications of ones actions. Kill or be killed, that's it. This was NOT a 'fight or flee' situation, Zimmerman was in no position to flee.
Ishmael
The law that allows an armed man to chase anyone they please for any reason they please even after being told it isn't a good idea.
At some point, you need to have an honest conversation about the facts in this case (and probably about a great many thing in life). I never said privacy, that's a word you threw in there to justify your limited view about what we know about this case. I've never brought up Martin's right to privacy. I said very specifically that the law allowed Zimmerman to leave his vehicle, while carrying a loaded weapon with the sole purpose of chasing a man he thought could be a minor, after he had been told by a third party it wasn't a good idea to do so.
There is no evidence that shows Martin beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Zimmerman had plenty of opportunities to retreat.
No moron, liberty allowed Zimmerman to leave his vehicle. If not there would be a law against that activity, there wasn't. So what law do you propose idiot?
As far as 'facts' go they don't mean shit to a tree. It came down to those few moments where Zimmerman was on his back. calling for help. That was the black and white moment, all else is bullshit.
Ishmael
I've already specifically said what the law should prevent.
Again, when you don't like the facts you attempt to change what I said. I never said Zimmerman didn't have the right to challenge Martin on where he was going (although Zimmerman never did this), and I never challenged Zimmerman's right to leave his vehicle. What I very specifically take umbrage with is that Florida law allows an armed individual to chase another individual after being told it isn't a good idea.
If you think that should be legal, that's cool, we'll disagree, but at least have the guts to respond to what I'm saying & not make stuff up.
In your first post you were talking about the injuries Zimmerman may have suffered. The DNA evidence did not support the theory that Martin caused any injuries to Zimmerman. When called on that fact you switched to talking about where Martin was.
I can't wait for an armed father chasing someone who abducted his toddler daughter after being told to wait, police are on the way, after that law is passed.
After the police and other responders arrived, Z's face was photographed and then treated, including wiping off the blood. This and the falling rain would have also eliminated any skin cells that would have come from TM's fists.
I have read complaints that the police did not "bag" TM's hands. The rain might well have washed the blood and other organic matter from them too.
There is another possibility. TM might have been hitting the other man with the can of Arizona iced tea. Before you snort in derision, try an experiment. Hold an unopened can of tea or pop in your hand and pound on something with the bottom of the can, especially the corner. Try pounding on a wooden table or your thigh or your chin. You will find you can hit quite hard, much like using a blackjack or brass knuckles. The use of such a weapon would also be the reason TM's hands were not injured.
I suppose there are people who think that Jack Ruby shouldn't have been convicted of murder.
I'm not being snarky, but do you honestly think that's a good idea?
It looks like you're in agreement with me.
Depends on the circumstances.
Could you watch someone run off with your toddler daughter and not do anything?
If you mean about the lack of DNA, yes, and I also believe the cops should have been more careful to preserve possible evidence.
I would never live in a state that allows untrained, unsupervised, wanna be cops to patrol in public, harassing law abiding citizens.
It's bad enough that we have cops who shouldn't be cops.
I would never live in a state that allows untrained, unsupervised, wanna be cops to patrol in public, harassing law abiding citizens.
It's bad enough that we have cops who shouldn't be cops.