John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Publius1787]

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

Why or why not?

No. I don't think you can assume death or great bodily harm when someone sprays you and runs away. Besides, I've tried to shoot with pepper spray in my eyes (training with simunitions in a closed environment for safety reasons) and I sucked at it. Nevertheless, deadly force is authorized for law enforcement, military, and civilian if you are sprayed and the person goes for your gun. If that happens you have the right to assume that they are using their new found advantage not to escape but to kill you with your own currently holstered wepon. Stand your ground likewise does not apply if you have effectively neutralized the threat. In any case, if you have a weapon and you are sprayed it is best to gain positive control of the weapon and push down on the holster so that neither the aggressor can take it and you aren't putting lives in danger by firing blindly. In the case of Zimmerman we know that Trayvon likely threw the first blow because 1) With a gun there is no need to fight & 2) Zimmerman exercised no "standoff" with his weapon leaving him both open for attack and open for having his weapon taken from him. We know this from Zimmerman's wounds and the bullet hole testimony. Thus, the verdict of guilty cannot be achieved with such a vast amount of reasonable doubt.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

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

Why or why not?

Straw-man. If the arguments against Zim were as strong as you think, there would be no need for fictional analogies to make your point.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Why or why not?

Straw-man. If the arguments against Zim were as strong as you think, there would be no need for fictional analogies to make your point.

That's not a strawman, that's exactly what happened.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

.

And what was Zimmerman returning from doing?

 

[Billo_Really]

So now you're ignoring my above contentions?

That's a pretty contentious thing for you to say!

You claimed he was racist, without any proof.

I've told you my proof of that several times.

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.

That's not proof, it's damage control and irrelevant to the Martin case.

You think something he did completely separate from the Martin case is more relevant than something he said and did during the Martin incident?

You are now obliged to concede that point, or present compelling evidence contrary to mine.

I already have, so there's no need to concede anything.

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.

I agree with this (in principle).

Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating - CNN.com

George Zimmerman Racism Charges False, He Helped Blacks

Those articles don't prove your claim. In fact, one of them states he's part black, then a couple of sentences later, say's he's non-black.

I suggest less ambiguous proof would be better for you.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

.

And what was Zimmerman returning from doing?

Nothing illegal or deserving of being physically attacked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

]The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Trayvon was just walking thru. Zimmerman went up to him with a gun.

This is a lie.
"Aggression", im terms of self-defense, has a specific definition, one not met by Zimmerman's actions.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nothing illegal or deserving of being physically attacked.

Travon did nothing to be treated like a criminal.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is a lie.
"Aggression", im terms of self-defense, has a specific definition, one not met by Zimmerman's actions.

Bullshit! Zimmerman followed Travon, not the other way around.

 

[Publius1787]

This is a lie.
"Aggression", im terms of self-defense, has a specific definition, one not met by Zimmerman's actions.

Bullshit! Zimmerman followed Travon, not the other way around.

Well, that proves it. thanks for your insight and evidence. I'm convinced now.

here is the equivalent of what you just said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.
"Aggression", im terms of self-defense, has a specific definition, one not met by Zimmerman's actions.

Bullshit! Zimmerman followed Travon, not the other way around.

Thank you for proving my point. that Zimmerman;s actions do not fit the definition of "aggression" in the context of self-defense.

 

[westwall]

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.

The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Trayvon was just walking thru. Zimmerman went up to him with a gun.

When an armed man meets an un-armed man, it is the armed man who intends to put the other man under his absolute power.


As far as the crap you said about liberals, your own post makes it clear that Locke was saying the one who favors war, is the bad guy. And I know liberals are definitely "anti-war". Conservatives are "for-war". They started the wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years. So Locke would not side with the cons (the pro-war crowd).

The problem with your argument is it is flat assed wrong. GZ stopped following TM. TM appears to have hot footed it around the block to intercept GZ on the way back to his truck.
TM then initiated the attack.

 

[westwall]

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

Why or why not?

Straw-man. If the arguments against Zim were as strong as you think, there would be no need for fictional analogies to make your point.

That's not a strawman, that's exactly what happened.

Only it's not if you bothered to actually read what happened.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

That's not a strawman, that's exactly what happened.

No, it's not.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Nothing illegal or deserving of being physically attacked.

Travon did nothing to be treated like a criminal.

Tell me..

What is it called when a person walks on other people's property without permission?

It's called "Trespass" and it is a crime. Look it up sometime.

Trayvon was NOT walking on the sidewalk or streets. He was walking on other people's property, next to their homes and windows.

 

[OriginalShroom]

This is a lie.
"Aggression", im terms of self-defense, has a specific definition, one not met by Zimmerman's actions.

Bullshit! Zimmerman followed Travon, not the other way around.

Quesiton..

If Zimmerman, as indicated by the evidence at the scene, turned around and started walking back to his vehicle, and Martin continued walking home.. Just how did Martin suddenly appear next to Zimmerman to ask him the question "Do you have a problem" then answer his own quesiton with "Well, you do now."?

 

[Billo_Really]

Quesiton..

If Zimmerman, as indicated by the evidence at the scene, turned around and started walking back to his vehicle, and Martin continued walking home.. Just how did Martin suddenly appear next to Zimmerman to ask him the question "Do you have a problem" then answer his own quesiton with "Well, you do now."?

You're not starting the clock at the right time. What was Zimmerman doing before he turned around? He was provoking an incident. That was more than obvious in his call to the cops.

I love how you people keep bitching that we need a limited government, but then do a 180 and defend a guy who gave us a perfect example of what a surveillance state looks like, when people who have committed no crime, have done nothing more than walk through a neighborhood, get monitored and confronted because someone else perceived something they didn't like.

 

[Billo_Really]

Tell me..

What is it called when a person walks on other people's property without permission?

It's called "Trespass" and it is a crime. Look it up sometime.

Trayvon was NOT walking on the sidewalk or streets. He was walking on other people's property, next to their homes and windows.

And you know this how?

 

[Billo_Really]

No, it's not.

Yes it is.