Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 A presumably unarmed teenager being shot and killed for "talking back" to a man with a gun and a happy trigger finger....those are the similarities that I was inferring.It's not just you making that comparison - CNN has an article where the defense lawyer aruges; "This is not a Trayvon Martin case" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Or, as I heard it from a devout democrat I was having a discussion with once: "Don't tell me the facts, I've already made up my mind!!!!".Weird. I heard that exact phrase from a devout Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagr Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Magz. What gun and ammo did the shooter use? Seems effective. Looking to upgrade my current carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The fact that he has been charged means the investigators didn't buy his SYG defense. He make any defense he wants in court. It's up to the jury to decide if that defense is accepted. Doesn't make his defense a bad law. People claim "self defense" all the time - sometimes that is accepted, sometimes it is not. Just because someone's claims self-defense doesn't jive with your initial reading of the first wave of facts does NOT make self-defense a bad legal concept. Similarly, just because someone claims SYG doesn't make SYG a bad law.I love the line I read in one article "Florida has more a higher rate of exoneration in shooting situations because people claim SYG." Oh really? I read that as; "Other states jailed people who may be morally innocent because SYG was not available to them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Weird. I heard that exact phrase from a devout Republican.remember this one?"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by the fact checkers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 All I know is there would be no question of what happened if Scruit had been there with his camera car 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 All I know is there would be no question of what happened if Scruit had been there with his camera carThat I think we can all agree on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 This isn't even an issue unless Jesse Jackson and Reverend sharpton have taken their cut of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 This isn't even an issue unless Jesse Jackson and Reverend sharpton have taken their cut of it.When you're right, you're right. I'm sure those motherfuckers will be along shortly to start their normal extortion routine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 When you're right, you're right. I'm sure those motherfuckers will be along shortly to start their normal extortion routine. I'm sure they're on the gravy train heading that direction as we speak (type). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2fat2fly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'm sure they're on the gravy train heading that direction as we speak (type). Only if there's something in it for them. Right now Jesse "I'll leave my home for a microphone" Jackson should be more worried about his son:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/21/165662984/reports-rep-jesse-jackson-jr-will-resignhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/11/21/politics/illinois-jackson-resigns/index.htmlhttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-15/news/ct-met-jesse-jackson-jr-0715-20120715-67_1_repjesse-jackson-blagojevich-scandal-west-pullman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The fact that he has been charged means the investigators didn't buy his SYG defense. He make any defense he wants in court. It's up to the jury to decide if that defense is accepted. Doesn't make his defense a bad law. People claim "self defense" all the time - sometimes that is accepted, sometimes it is not. Just because someone's claims self-defense doesn't jive with your initial reading of the first wave of facts does NOT make self-defense a bad legal concept. Similarly, just because someone claims SYG doesn't make SYG a bad law.I love the line I read in one article "Florida has more a higher rate of exoneration in shooting situations because people claim SYG." Oh really? I read that as; "Other states jailed people who may be morally innocent because SYG was not available to them."No....this was yet another white man "although GZ wasn't white" shooting a young black man for whatever the reason for the escalation, the police are for sure covering their ass this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 No....this was yet another white man "although GZ wasn't white" shooting a young black man for whatever the reason for the escalation, the police are for sure covering their ass this time.The police arrested him, and the court is holding him without bail. The police wanting to cover their butts is understandable, but the court won't let the police hold someone without evidence on the off chance he might be guilty - they have shared evidence with the court that convinces the court to order no bail. Evidence that suggests SYG does not count here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Isn't he already screwed for causing an encounter while armed in the first place?No. You can walk up to people and talk to them while armed. Nothing against that. What you cannot do is start a PHYSICAL confrontation, shoot the guy when you are losing and then claim self defense. Problem is that you get two type-a personalities who don't know how to back down and eventually any encounter is likely to become a physical encounter. It all goes back to the old saying; "who threw the first punch?" First punch guy cannot shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Isn't he already screwed for causing an encounter while armed in the first place?Technically "yes", at least in Ohio you might be in some hot water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If anything, I'm sure he's in hot water for fleeing the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) If anything, I'm sure he's in hot water for fleeing the scene.I think that him fleeing the scene is going to be a huge weight on every juror's mind. If he thought he was innocent, why did he not contact the police until after the news broke that the guy died, the next day? I predict that is going to be the major factor in the disposition of this case. Edited November 30, 2012 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Technically "yes", at least in Ohio you might be in some hot water.Why? If I ask a guy in the street what time it is and he starts to attack me, can I not defend myself because I "started the encounter"?We don't know what the demeanor of his request was. Was it; "Any chance you could turn that down a bit, please?? or "Turn that sh*t off or I'll kick your ass!"If the way he spoke to them was illegal in some way (contained a threat or would make a reasonable person fear that an assault was imminent) then sure, he could be argued to have "started it" - but simply starting the conversation is not problematic in proving a self defense situation.Gotta be on your best behavior when armed. That doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist sheep ripe for being trampled on - but it does mean you go into any confrontation (note: not "conversation"!) knowing that it could be fatal for the other person so you have a greater moral duty to not let things get to that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Guns are bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I also think there is a difference between 1 or 2 shots to protect myself and firing 8 or 9. Granted I've never been in a situation where I've needed to fire a gun at someone so maybe I dont know, but I would think 8 or 9 shoots would be a bit excessive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Bullshit if you have to pull your gun in actual self defense empty the mag in the motherfucker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownsfan1 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Guns are bad People are bad not guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Bad people make guns good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Bullshit if you have to pull your gun in actual self defense empty the mag in the motherfuckerwell yeah in that situation. but I think this one might be a little different. They didnt shoot back did they? which also makes me wonder if they had the shotgun. If I had a shotgun and someone started shootin at me, you better believe I'd shoot the thing back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The guy couldve seen anything and maybe thought it was a shotgun. My mom was an ER nurse when we lived in Miami, one of the last cases she took was a 12 yo kid who had been shot in the head by a cop. Kid had a toy gun. All the cop saw was a gun and shot. Didnt know at the time it was a kid. All it took was one shot from the cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.