John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Billo_Really]

Now I'm going to ask you: Please define "stalk," because the general population differentiate between "follow" and "stalk."

In this case, it's the same thing. Zimmerman had no legal justification to be dealing with Martin at all. But he did have one big major reason for wanting something to happen and that was apparent on his 911 call.

Also, please cite which law, in any part of the United States, says you can't call 911 unless there is a VERIFIED emergency.

Also, would this mean I can't call 911 to report "loud noise" or "a vandalized mailbox," because there is no emergency occurring at the time of the call?

Of right, you CONTORTED THE STATEMENT.

You should replace "emergency" with "criminal or suspicious activity." Let me fix it for you.

And you cannot make a false 911 call when there is no emergency.

To:

And you cannot make a 911 call when there is no criminal or suspicious activity.

The word "false" is omitted, because it adds no value to the statement. The goal of your statement is to embody what constitutes a "false 911 call."

If someone were to call 911 to report non-suspicious activity, the dispathcer would simply say it's not an emergency. So calling 911 to report non-suspicious activity is not a false 911 call.

However, if someone were call 911 and LIE to the dispatcher, and the dispatcher made a judgement based on intentionally deceptive or false information, then that would be a false 911 call.

And if you truly believe that the police should only respond to "emergencies" but not suspicious activity, then you should also be advocating that everyone carries a firearm for self defense, since the police are CERTAIN to arrive after you're dead and severely harmed; whereas, if we discard your silly claim, there is a good chance that the police will arrive BEFORE there is major damage.

Walking un-armed through a neighborhood, is not suspicious activity.

An armed, racist prick, following that person walking through the neighborhood, IS suspicious activity.

911 is for emergencies only, not cat up a tree shit. And if you call them one too many times for non-emergencies, you're gonna get a visit.

 

[Billo_Really]

If I remember correctly, when GZ first called the police he used their non- emergency number.

Okay, we'll give him credit for that.

But we won't for reporting someone who wasn't breaking any laws.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
An armed, racist prick, following that person walking through the neighborhood, IS suspicious activity.

1) You are allowed be armed, that is not suspicious, it's a guaranteed right. Guilty of distortion.

2) You must prove the assertion of racism. Seeing that Zimmerman organized on behalf a homeless black man who was beaten to death by the police, I'd say you have an extremely hard case to make (he also mentored a few blacks). Guilty of deflection (race card).

3) Following someone is not a crime, especially when you're in direct contact with the authorities. Guilty of contortion.

I just recently made a thread of the methods of Deceivers, you should read it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/304392-types-of-deception.html

Not only do you wrongly construe information, but you do it intentionally.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

I hope he realizes what he's done, and decides to atone for it.

If not? I hope he's got the fortitude to deal with whatever Karma deals him.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

I hope that a lot of other people think the same about Zimmerman, but only without the killing of an innocent.

 

[Billo_Really]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

I hope he realizes what he's done, and decides to atone for it.

If not? I hope he's got the fortitude to deal with whatever Karma deals him.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

I hope that a lot of other people think the same about Zimmerman, but only without the killing of an innocent.

And I hope everyone thinks the same way you do, including me.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

Can you elaborate further on that claim, and then provide the proof. Follow and stalk are different concepts.

Naturally, in a crime ridden neighborhood, someone walking in the rain on a February night concealing his face is quite suspicious. That is simply a common sense judgement, based on EXPERIENCE, and is why the Neighborhood Watch was established.

Also "needed to be brought down." lol. When did Zimmerman ever say he "needed to bring down" Trayvon.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

I hope he realizes what he's done, and decides to atone for it.

If not? I hope he's got the fortitude to deal with whatever Karma deals him.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

I hope that a lot of other people think the same about Zimmerman, but only without the killing of an innocent.

And I hope everyone thinks the same way you do, including me.

Because like-minded individuals congratulating each other, without either ever presenting proof of the other's claims, is a valid method of verifying their assertions.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

Can you elaborate further on that claim, and then provide the proof. Follow and stalk are different concepts.

Naturally, in a crime ridden neighborhood, someone walking in the rain on a February night concealing his face is quite suspicious. That is simply a common sense judgement, based on EXPERIENCE, and is why the Neighborhood Watch was established.

Also "needed to be brought down." lol. When did Zimmerman ever say he "needed to bring down" Trayvon.

You're right....................if I follow you, I'm going to do so and be very careful to protect my own safety. Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Trayvon down the sidewalk which was on the backyards of the people living there is a pretty good example of stalking. Especially when the 911 operator told him (to his ear incidentally, because he was on the phone) "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow Trayvon.

As far as being a "crime ridden neighborhood", do you really think that? I thought the whole reason people lived inside of a gated community (which is what Trayvon was walking through) was because they were tired of the crime in the suburbs and wanted to have a safe place to live behind the walls they'd constructed.

And yeah..................Zimmerman was looking for someone to "bring down" because he was a failed cop, as well as was pissed at the "fucking punks that get away".

Nope..................Sorry................Zimmerman needs to go to jail.

 

[Billo_Really]

1) You are allowed be armed, that is not suspicious...

It is when you're following someone that you've already demonstrated a pre-disposition towards.

2) You must prove the assertion of racism.

That was proven on his call to the cops.

3) Following someone is not a crime...

Yes it is. Unless you're a member of law enforcement, it's called stalking.

I just recently made a thread of the methods of Deceivers, you should read it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/304392-types-of-deception.html

Not only do you wrongly construe information, but you do it intentionally.

You should walk your talk.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin.

He thought Trayvon was looking suspicious and needed to be brought down?

Can you elaborate further on that claim, and then provide the proof. Follow and stalk are different concepts.

Naturally, in a crime ridden neighborhood, someone walking in the rain on a February night concealing his face is quite suspicious. That is simply a common sense judgement, based on EXPERIENCE, and is why the Neighborhood Watch was established.

Also "needed to be brought down." lol. When did Zimmerman ever say he "needed to bring down" Trayvon.

You're right....................if I follow you, I'm going to do so and be very careful to protect my own safety. Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Trayvon down the sidewalk which was on the backyards of the people living there is a pretty good example of stalking. Especially when the 911 operator told him (to his ear incidentally, because he was on the phone) "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow Trayvon.

As far as being a "crime ridden neighborhood", do you really think that? I thought the whole reason people lived inside of a gated community (which is what Trayvon was walking through) was because they were tired of the crime in the suburbs and wanted to have a safe place to live behind the walls they'd constructed.

And yeah..................Zimmerman was looking for someone to "bring down" because he was a failed cop, as well as was pissed at the "fucking punks that get away".

Nope..................Sorry................Zimmerman needs to go to jail.

At least you didn't flash the race card.

Now why do you think the Jury thought differently than you? How were six people simultaneously too dumb to have reached your conclusion?

 

[Billo_Really]

Because like-minded individuals congratulating each other, without either ever presenting proof of the other's claims, is a valid method of verifying their assertions.

He wasn't congratulating me, but I was him.

If you got issues with what he said, let's hear them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can you elaborate further on that claim, and then provide the proof. Follow and stalk are different concepts.

Naturally, in a crime ridden neighborhood, someone walking in the rain on a February night concealing his face is quite suspicious. That is simply a common sense judgement, based on EXPERIENCE, and is why the Neighborhood Watch was established.

Also "needed to be brought down." lol. When did Zimmerman ever say he "needed to bring down" Trayvon.

You're right....................if I follow you, I'm going to do so and be very careful to protect my own safety. Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Trayvon down the sidewalk which was on the backyards of the people living there is a pretty good example of stalking. Especially when the 911 operator told him (to his ear incidentally, because he was on the phone) "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow Trayvon.

As far as being a "crime ridden neighborhood", do you really think that? I thought the whole reason people lived inside of a gated community (which is what Trayvon was walking through) was because they were tired of the crime in the suburbs and wanted to have a safe place to live behind the walls they'd constructed.

And yeah..................Zimmerman was looking for someone to "bring down" because he was a failed cop, as well as was pissed at the "fucking punks that get away".

Nope..................Sorry................Zimmerman needs to go to jail.

At least you didn't flash the race card.

Now why do you think the Jury thought differently than you? How were six people simultaneously too dumb to have reached your conclusion?

Probably because they were picked out of the jury pool by the defense attorneys who were hoping Zimmerman would walk free.

I mean...........................there has already been one jury person who has come out (I think it's Jury Person B37) who has said they didn't have enough information (or brainpower) to come up with a conviction.

Matter of fact, I hope every jury member on this trial is plagued by nightmares of having their own child killed.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

1) Is your claim that the prosecution was denied their ability to equally participate in the voir dire process?

2) I asked WHY did the jury think there prosecution failed. You answered it by saying "one of the jurors said the prosecution failed to convince me." So all you did was rephrase my question as a statement, and that was the proof you offered.

3) So you believe a Jury should be punished for their verdicts? Especially when you have no yet presented WHY you think they should be punished.

Present some evidence, and devise a conclusion BASED on that evidence, so that I may properly debate with you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because like-minded individuals congratulating each other, without either ever presenting proof of the other's claims, is a valid method of verifying their assertions.

He wasn't congratulating me, but I was him.

If you got issues with what he said, let's hear them.

So now you're ignoring my above contentions?

You claimed he was racist, without any proof.

I pointed out that he organized on behalf of a homeless black man who was beaten by the police and mentored several blacks, in order to refute your unsubstantiated claim. You are now obliged to concede that point, or present compelling evidence contrary to mine. If you fail to meet that obligation, then you are discredited, by your own fault; however, one does not discredit themselves by conceding a point, it actually lends them more credibility for their humility.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting

http://www.inquisitr.com/847663/george-zimmerman-racism-he-helped-black-people/

 

[NYcarbineer]

Absolutely no evidence was presented by the Prosecution to refute a single point made.

Martin's girlfriend is the one who said Martin threw the first punch and called him a "Creepy ass Cracker".

You mean when she said she thought Martin may have thrown the first punch after being grabbed by Zimmerman?

lol, that would make Zimmerman the instigator and thus guilty of using a fight he provoked as an excuse to commit murder.

Still making up your own "facts".....

So if a weird acting guy grabs you, and you throw a punch at him,

YOU"RE the bad guy???

lol

 

[Publius1787]

John Locke on Stand Your Ground

Liberals want to undo over 400-5000 years of proven legal thought.

CHAP. III. (2nd Treatise of Government)
Of the State of War. Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke

§. 16.

THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction:for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

§. 17.

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i. e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or common-wealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

§. 18.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i. e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

§. 19.

And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.
§. 20.

But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future harm: but where no such appeal is, as in the state of nature, for want of positive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace, and desires reconciliation on such terms as may repair any wrongs he has already done, and secure the innocent for the future; nay, where an appeal to the law, and constituted judges, lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is hard to imagine any thing but a state of war: for where-ever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiassed application of it, to all who are under it; where-ever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven.

§. 21.

To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a state of war: but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord the Judge (says he) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That question then cannot mean, who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to heaven in it? of that I myself can only be judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge of all men.

So you're saying that Trayvon should have had the gun, and should have shot and killed Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and started the conflict, and Trayvon ended up disadvantaged and dead because he didn't have a gun.

Right?

I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you had zero reading comprehension skills.

 

[Publius1787]

So what if we had Zimmerman dead of a fractured skull and Trayvon Martin wounded by a bullet from Zimmerman's gun.

Your verdict would be Zimmerman died fighting heroically for his life? Standing his ground albeit unsuccessfully?

My verdict would be likewise that there is not enough evidence to prove either case. Unlike you I am not willing to condemn a man on biased ideology amid a lack of evidence.

You need to learn to read, asshole, and not lie about my positions.

Any opinion other than an acknowledgement of a lack of evidence is a biased position absent of respect for the law and the rights of both the accused and the "victim."

 

[Publius1787]

That's like saying a rape victim had it coming because she was wearing a red dress.

Zimmerman had no legal grounds to be suspicious in the first place.

Translation: It was not legal for Zimmerman to think the way he did. Great, now they want us to go to jail for our thoughts.

Now you're sure that Zimmerman did NOT act wrongfully on his 'thoughts'?

You people try too hard. It's amusing.

You questions assumes facts not in evidence. Indeed, your hanging guilt on a man under both assuming what he thought and assuming that he acted on what you thought he thought. All assumptions aside the only verdict possible was not guilty.

 

[OriginalShroom]

You mean when she said she thought Martin may have thrown the first punch after being grabbed by Zimmerman?

lol, that would make Zimmerman the instigator and thus guilty of using a fight he provoked as an excuse to commit murder.

Still making up your own "facts".....

So if a weird acting guy grabs you, and you throw a punch at him,

YOU"RE the bad guy???

lol

The problem is is that the person doing the grabbing was Martin when he started to follow Zimmerman after he started returning to his vehicle.

Another problem is the only person who uttered racist comments that night was Martin.

Another problem is that Martin threw the first punch.

Then there is the problem that there is a witness to Martin sitting on top of Zimmerman, punching him, even after being told that the cops were being called. In fact he stayed there long enough for the guy to get his phone, dial the police, and start talking to the dispatcher when the single gun shot was recorded by the 911 system.

 

[Lakhota]

So, is it stand-your-ground self-defense if the man shoots her?

Why or why not?