(04-10-2012 02:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:Is this story supposed to be argument against the SYG law? I'm failing to find sympathy for James here: after words are exchanged, a senior citizen walks away and says he doesn't want to fight,

Initially he didn't avoid conflict, which is part of the duty to retreat. I'd agree it's not the best illustration of SYG because later on he did apparently turn his back and retreat when the Iraq vet yelled at him.

A I reading this right??

There was a difference of opinion. One guy raised his voice and the other guy said he wasn't there to fight... And literally tried to walk away... And YOU don't believe he didn't avoid conflict? That he didn't exercise a supposed duty to walk away? Based on the evidence, the moment it became heated, he did exactly that.

I mean seriously... Exactly what was the guy supposed to do? And don't start with the "I said it wasn't a great example" bs... You claimed he didn't retreat.

What is TRULY amusing is that it comes from someone who posts thousands of opinions and then tries to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. I guess in his world, the duty to retreat is based on who makes the first comment, thus by starting the thread, he doesn't have the duty... But any responder does.

Once again... Nice to be judge and jury of your own little trial world

(04-11-2012 01:19 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 09:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Max would rather see murders. At least it wouldn't be his fellow Dims being killed.

Welcome back Rebs. How was the golf turnament? I hear the Georgia favorite Bubba won. Can't beat that name down in redneck land. How is your treatment for PTSD going? As for the post, I really don't think he would like to see murders you are the one always making such comments.

My parents said the Bubba chants were deafening on the 10th in sudden death. His amazing shot out of the woods went over their heads and judging by the cheers they thought it went in. Some guy behind them said "I don't know how to say Hozenwhatever but I know how to say Bubba. Bubba." LOL

(04-11-2012 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 02:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:Is this story supposed to be argument against the SYG law? I'm failing to find sympathy for James here: after words are exchanged, a senior citizen walks away and says he doesn't want to fight,

Initially he didn't avoid conflict, which is part of the duty to retreat. I'd agree it's not the best illustration of SYG because later on he did apparently turn his back and retreat when the Iraq vet yelled at him.

A I reading this right??

There was a difference of opinion. One guy raised his voice and the other guy said he wasn't there to fight... And literally tried to walk away... And YOU don't believe he didn't avoid conflict? That he didn't exercise a supposed duty to walk away? Based on the evidence, the moment it became heated, he did exactly that.

I mean seriously... Exactly what was the guy supposed to do? And don't start with the "I said it wasn't a great example" bs... You claimed he didn't retreat.

What is TRULY amusing is that it comes from someone who posts thousands of opinions and then tries to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. I guess in his world, the duty to retreat is based on who makes the first comment, thus by starting the thread, he doesn't have the duty... But any responder does.

Once again... Nice to be judge and jury of your own little trial world

No you're not reading this right. The old guy walked to the basketball court to tell kids to stop skateboarding, so yes he was looking for conflict INITIALLY. He didn't count on an Iraq vet standing up for the skateboarding punk and then walked away, which is enough IMO under the law. So he did satisfy the duty to retreat, but if he had been attacked BEFORE turning his back and walking away he wouldn't have. Does that clear it up?

No it's not the best example; I didn't write the article and pick out the two stories. I posted the thread mainly because justifiable homicides tripled which is a statistic I would expect after passing SYG.

We don't have a duty to retreat in Georgia, and I like it that way.

(04-11-2012 02:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  No you're not reading this right. The old guy walked to the basketball court to tell kids to stop skateboarding, so yes he was looking for conflict INITIALLY. He didn't count on an Iraq vet standing up for the skateboarding punk and then walked away, which is enough IMO under the law. So he did satisfy the duty to retreat, but if he had been attacked BEFORE turning his back and walking away he wouldn't have. Does that clear it up?

yes old people should shut the hell up or else they can be accused of "starting a conflict"

(04-10-2012 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 02:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If you pass a law saying the average person can take the law into their own hands and walk into trouble and fire the moment they feel threatened, common sense tells you some will do just that.

I stopped reading your post after the above. I don't think any law was passed where you can take the law into your own hands because you still have to prove that what you did was lawful. I think the law was passed so people don't become victims of either a criminal or the legal system.

You ought to recognize the tactic - it's on page 1 of the playbook. When debating with someone from another world apart from the liberal plantation, you MUST always distort the position of your opponent to absurd levels. Then you can use it to scare people. Same with using examples or hypotheticals. Truth is not as important as scoring points.

Anybody else notice that now ALEC is the left's new favorite target? The left rabble rousers are trying to boycott and intimidate corporate members of ALEC, a nearly 40 year old organization. While I think that boycotts in general are stupid and a leftist tactic, a number of large corporations have already left the organization over the Trayvon issue. Pepsi, Coke, Walgreens and others have capitulated to leftist political pressure. As such, they will no longer get ANY of MY business for being such limp wristed, pathetic business fools. You want to alienate a large portion of your customers? Go ahead, you idiots.

(04-11-2012 02:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 02:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:Is this story supposed to be argument against the SYG law? I'm failing to find sympathy for James here: after words are exchanged, a senior citizen walks away and says he doesn't want to fight,

Initially he didn't avoid conflict, which is part of the duty to retreat. I'd agree it's not the best illustration of SYG because later on he did apparently turn his back and retreat when the Iraq vet yelled at him.

A I reading this right??

There was a difference of opinion. One guy raised his voice and the other guy said he wasn't there to fight... And literally tried to walk away... And YOU don't believe he didn't avoid conflict? That he didn't exercise a supposed duty to walk away? Based on the evidence, the moment it became heated, he did exactly that.

I mean seriously... Exactly what was the guy supposed to do? And don't start with the "I said it wasn't a great example" bs... You claimed he didn't retreat.

What is TRULY amusing is that it comes from someone who posts thousands of opinions and then tries to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. I guess in his world, the duty to retreat is based on who makes the first comment, thus by starting the thread, he doesn't have the duty... But any responder does.

Once again... Nice to be judge and jury of your own little trial world

No you're not reading this right. The old guy walked to the basketball court to tell kids to stop skateboarding, so yes he was looking for conflict INITIALLY. He didn't count on an Iraq vet standing up for the skateboarding punk and then walked away, which is enough IMO under the law. So he did satisfy the duty to retreat, but if he had been attacked BEFORE turning his back and walking away he wouldn't have. Does that clear it up?

No it's not the best example; I didn't write the article and pick out the two stories. I posted the thread mainly because justifiable homicides tripled which is a statistic I would expect after passing SYG.

If his adminishon of kids on skateboards on a basketball court is considered looking for conflict, why did the kids, and the veteran not have a duty to walk away and avoid the conflict? I mean, it seems to me that using your logic, the kids started it by skating and not playing basketball on a basketball court... And the veteran got involved in something that was none of his business. I mean, if I post a no trespassing sign, and somebody trespasses and shoots me, will they argue that I started it by putting up the sign?

As to the rest of it...

So you think the incidence of people using force to defend themselves increased... As opposed to simply things that were previously classified as assaults were now classified as justifiable? Where do you get that from? In order to prove what you say, you'd have to show that crimes of this sort increase... And not merely that by expanding the definition, you increase the incidence.... Something that not only makes sense and is logical, but obvious.

Good...Sounds like 118 scumbags got snuffed that the system does not have to deal with now. Dead perps tell no tales.

(04-11-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  We don't have a duty to retreat in Georgia, and I like it that way.

Yes we know. You like violence and killing people.

(04-11-2012 02:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  No it's not the best example; I didn't write the article and pick out the two stories.

Which is why I LOL'ed at the Washington Post. They had 180 cases to choose from, and 1 of the 2 they selected clearly supports the shooter.

The lesson learned in that story is not to go "macho badass" and start pummeling a senior citizen - one who's already stated he didn't want to physically fight, no less - because of a disagreement over skateboarding on a basketball court, especially when that verbal disagreement didn't even involve you in the first place. An unfortunate situation, but he brought it on himself.

I think the headline in the OP says is all and is why I didn't even read it....


"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES"....nuff said.

EDIT: And lets not forget that to people like Max abortion is justifiable homicide...

Well I wouldn't say it "clearly" supports the shooter. Whenever you use deadly force you have to reasonably fear for your life and there aren't enough facts in the article to decide that either way (but I strongly suspect the Iraq vet wasn't going to take his life). You don't get to shoot someone because they take a swing at you or tackle you.

(04-12-2012 09:06 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Well I wouldn't say it "clearly" supports the shooter. Whenever you use deadly force you have to reasonably fear for your life and there aren't enough facts in the article to decide that either way (but I strongly suspect the Iraq vet wasn't going to take his life). You don't get to shoot someone because they take a swing at you or tackle you.

They take a swing and tackle you? That would qualify as a fear for your life.

At the time of the event, you cannot foresee that deadly force is not necessary. You are betting your life.

Are you kidding? Have you ever been punched before? Do you think every barroom fight in America should end with a gunshot?

The shooter said in testimony: "He was choking me to death, and he was about to take away the gun from me." Unless you believe he is lying, this indicates he was in danger of great bodily harm or even death (especially considering his age). This information coupled with his turning around, his stated intent to 'not fight', the vet charging him... everything here suggests the shooter was in the right.

(04-12-2012 09:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Are you kidding? Have you ever been punched before? Do you think every barroom fight in America should end with a gunshot?

No, not 'every' one, but some of them. It's a case-by-case basis of what the whole dynamics of the situation were. Two guys voluntarily "mixing it up" over a girl would be a different scenario than a couple of aggressive drunks gang-tackling someone for wearing the wrong sports jersey. Just like those two WashPo examples. One was uncalled for, one was justifiable.

(04-12-2012 09:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Are you kidding? Have you ever been punched before? Do you think every barroom fight in America should end with a gunshot?

Are you going to deny that any altercation could escalate to a deadly situation? You are a fool.

BTW, Zimmerman wasn't 240 Lbs as people have claimed. He's 5'9", 170 Lbs. He was 240 Lbs a few years ago, but lost a lot of weight. Martin was between 6'2"-6'3" and, 190, athletic, and a football player. He's never going to be convicted of murder. He broke off any chase these libs are talking about and was walking back to his truck. That makes Martin the aggressor.

(04-12-2012 09:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Are you kidding? Have you ever been punched before? Do you think every barroom fight in America should end with a gunshot?

Every one COULD, from either party

(04-12-2012 09:47 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  The shooter said in testimony: "He was choking me to death, and he was about to take away the gun from me." Unless you believe he is lying, this indicates he was in danger of great bodily harm or even death (especially considering his age). This information coupled with his turning around, his stated intent to 'not fight', the vet charging him... everything here suggests the shooter was in the right.

(04-12-2012 09:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Are you kidding? Have you ever been punched before? Do you think every barroom fight in America should end with a gunshot?

No, not 'every' one, but some of them. It's a case-by-case basis of what the whole dynamics of the situation were. Two guys voluntarily "mixing it up" over a girl would be a different scenario than a couple of aggressive drunks gang-tackling someone for wearing the wrong sports jersey. Just like those two WashPo examples. One was uncalled for, one was justifiable.

I don't know if he's lying, but it's not like there's no incentive to.

I agree it's a case by case basis. But theoretically at some point in all of them they "could" escalate to death, so if you use that as the legal standard you're asking for a lot more dead people.

Quote:BTW, Zimmerman wasn't 240 Lbs as people have claimed. He's 5'9", 170 Lbs. He was 240 Lbs a few years ago, but lost a lot of weight. Martin was between 6'2"-6'3" and, 190, athletic, and a football player. He's never going to be convicted of murder. He broke off any chase these libs are talking about and was walking back to his truck. That makes Martin the aggressor.

He lost a lot of weight in the 45 days after the shooting until the arrest yesterday. Just look at the two mugshots.

And even if true, no that doesn't make Martin the aggressor. Martin could still have stopped beating Z up, and Z pulled out the gun thereby extinguishing the threat and making HIM the aggressor, and shot Martin while Martin was crying for his life. The moment the threat is extinguished, self defense is extinguished. This version of the facts is corroborated by two experts who say the voice crying for help before the shot wasn't Zimmerman to a reasonable scientific certainty.

Besides, if Martin was on top of him beating him up when Z shot as Z claims, why wasn't Z covered in Martin's blood after shooting him in the chest? He wasn't covered in it at the police station 90 minutes later. We haven't heard that he was in any police report or witness statement. I suppose it's possible he was and the AMTs washed it off and let him change shirts, but that seems unlikely.

(04-12-2012 10:37 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Besides, if Martin was on top of him beating him up when Z shot as Z claims, why wasn't Z covered in Martin's blood after shooting him in the chest? He wasn't covered in it at the police station 90 minutes later. We haven't heard that he was in any police report or witness statement. I suppose it's possible he was and the AMTs washed it off and let him change shirts, but that seems unlikely.

If you're on top of me, beating me, and I pull out my .45, pop you in the side of the head and push you off of me, I won't have any blood on me other than my own caused by Martin.