How would you change the law to prevent another Zimmerman debacle?

[UncleBuck]

LOL Two more people I've never heard of. Those voices in your head, what else do they tell you?

whatever you say, jackfate.

 

[ASMALLVOICE]

whatever you say, jackfate.

LMFAO.....go bucky go

Peace

Asmallvoice

 

[BigNBushy]

I think the real travesty here is that an obviously innocent man had to go through the emotional turmoil that is being prosecuted by the state for a serious crime.

 

[desert dude]

take self defense off the books when you follow someone, because at that point your are on the offensive, not the defensive.

simple.

see something suspicious? report it. don't follow, don't provoke, don't take the law into your own hands, you are not the police. call it the anti-vigilantism law.

So, make following a suspicious person a crime? If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and ask him, "can I help you", have you forfeited your right to defend yourself if you are savagely attacked by him? Should we bow our heads and never make eye contact with another person?

 

[SSHZ]

Of course not Buck...what the fuck in all hell is your point in such a meaningless post?...you're better than that...

No he's NOT!!!!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

What I'd change is have a non-racist president who doesn't incite violence by implying he would beat "creepy" crackers that don't know their place, too.

 

[UncleBuck]

So, make following a suspicious person a crime? If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and ask him, "can I help you", have you forfeited your right to defend yourself if you are savagely attacked by him? Should we bow our heads and never make eye contact with another person?

he got out of his car to follow someone that he was told he didn't need to follow, he followed anyway.

that is not defense, that is offense.

zimmerman never asked "can i help you?", he never even identtified himself. he saw a kid run away from him and he went and followed even when he was told he didn't need to. right to self defense forfeited, he is on the offense at that point.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think the real travesty here is that an obviously innocent man had to go through the emotional turmoil that is being prosecuted by the state for a serious crime.

if he was so obviously innocent, than why did half the jury want to convict him for murder 2 or manslaughter initially? why did serino want to do the same?

you need to learn the meanings of words. start with "obvious". it does not mean what you think it does.

 

[cannabineer]

I know that many of you think Zimmerman was guilty of "at least manslaughter" and that he was wrongly acquitted. He walked because of "beyond a reasonable doubt", or because he properly used self defense where he "reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death".

To convict Zimmerman in the case at hand would require a change in the law. What would you change? Would you change the American legal system and make a person "guilty until proven innocent"? Would you change the standard of guilt to "somebody died and Zimmerman might have acted rashly so he should go to prison"? Would you change the law to disallow self defense with a deadly weapon? Even though SYG is irrelevant to this trial, would you revoke SYG? Would you disallow citizens' right to keep and bear arms?

I'd like to keep bear arms that were a bit more **** useful. cn

 

[cannabineer]

Actually, I expect to be called names as usual, but I don't expect anybody to step forward with any rational changes to the legal system. Cheesy, proves the point. The simple fact is, self defense laws are reasonable, and moral.

SYG laws are also quite reasonable. People such as our corrupt Attorney General will bloviate about SYG laws causing carnage, with no facts to back up the claim, but how can any reasonable person assert that "if you are assaulted you have a duty to run away and if you don't you are guilty of a crime". The implication that everybody is just waiting for a good SYG opportunity to shoot and kill another person is just ludicrous. If "progressives" actually believe such an accusation it makes me quite leery of being around them because it certainly implies that they believe such a thing about themselves, hence they are angry, dangerous people. I have never met a gun owner that believes such a thing.

Steve! Morris! Burt!
cn

 

[cannabineer]

 

[londonfog]

I would make it mandatory for a blood teat after the shooting. Make sure that the shooter was not high on medication or drunk. Not even an arrest at first. Just a blood test for anyone involved in the shooting of another individual.

 

[NLXSK1]

I would make it mandatory for a blood teat after the shooting. Make sure that the shooter was not high on medication or drunk. Not even an arrest at first. Just a blood test for anyone involved in the shooting of another individual.

And if a person has been drinking or using drugs do you also believe this removes their right to self defense?

BTW, I think this might already be a common practice.

 

[blacksun]

The only thing those bastards care about is trying to turn us against each other to further THEIR personal agendas.

As a method to distract the sheep from odumbo failing at his job and how terrible odumbocare is, I would have to say, it's working pretty damn well.

 

[kelly4]

if he was so obviously innocent, than why did half the jury want to convict him for murder 2 or manslaughter initially?

Because the prosecution gets to tell their side of the story first. Their minds changed when the defense was allowed to tell their side of the story. I'm betting you already knew that...

 

[londonfog]

And if a person has been drinking or using drugs do you also believe this removes their right to self defense?

BTW, I think this might already be a common practice.

at this moment it is not a requirement to submit blood. Now if the officer thinks you are under the influence they can have you submit blood. I would make it mandatory on a shooting.

and yes if you are drunk or amp up on coke I believe you should not be carrying for self defense. Hell you would end up shooting any and everyone if you paranoid on a coke high or some other kind of drug abuse.

You do not have the right to bear arms HIGH AND DRUNK

 

[cannabineer]

How would you correct for the extremely long lifetime of THC metabolite? Imo you are just buttressing Drug War. cn

 

[ginwilly]

I'm not sure I'm willing to change laws to bend in the favor of the assailant. Defending oneself is one of those basic human rights/gifts/nature.

 

[desert dude]

he got out of his car to follow someone that he was told he didn't need to follow, he followed anyway.

that is not defense, that is offense.

zimmerman never asked "can i help you?", he never even identtified himself. he saw a kid run away from him and he went and followed even when he was told he didn't need to. right to self defense forfeited, he is on the offense at that point.

The jury considered all of that and decided it did not happen as you have incessantly been saying for over a year. TM attacked and savagely beat Zimmerman... bang!

 

[ginwilly]

Martin's girl friend (not girlfriend) said in an interview that of course she thinks Trayvon swung first. She knows him better than the rest of us, yet Buck and others still refuse to believe this. It's an affliction of wanting to yell racism at every perceived injustice.