John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[OriginalShroom]

It seems they think that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman (which means they really do believe in "stand your ground"), or perhaps, Zimmerman attacked Martin. In either case, the facts do not support their claims.

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Are you really that ignorant of the facts?

Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his car. Martin turned around and confronted Zimmerman.

 

[Publius1787]

In your scenario, no law was broken. Congratulations, it seems you can think of a legal confrontation. The moment it becomes illegal is when force is used. If you can answer who used force first then you can answer a question that none of the jury could with their exclusive access to all of the evidence. In the mean time Zimmerman has not only presumption of innocence but the injuries to back up his story. If it can be proven that Zimmerman was the first to use force then he should be serving out a prison sentence. But that objective thinking is absent among race hustlers and liberals alike. They want blood and solid black political support, even if they need a lynch a "presumed innocent" man to do it. Thus they rushed through a trial with zero evidence to back it up and denied Trayvon the very thing they presumed to seek. True justice. They didn't want justice. They wanted a trophy. They wanted the absence of the rule of law when applied against minorities. They wanted victim status. They wanted a legal handout. And why not? Social Justice philosophy demands it.

The moment it becomes illegal, is when one party, denies the other party, their rights. There doesn't have to be force used for that to happen. When I'm walking down a public street and someone I don't know comes up to me and asks "what am I doing?", they are denying me my right to walk down that street in peace.

If I am not breaking any laws and am not infringing on anyone else's rights, it is none of anyone's fucking business what I am doing and they have no right to come up to me and ask me about it.

So talking to people walking on a sidewalk is a violation of their rights? Of course, it seems that the sidewalk they were talking on just happened the be the same one connected to Zimmerman's parked truck but lets not allow the facts to get in the way of our biases. In any case, whether he followed him or not, following, speaking, pursuing an association, or rejecting an association, are all NOT ILLEGAL. If it were, then speaking to people would also be illegal. You have the right to walk in peace. Peace is absence of force and violence. Talking is not force nor violence. Furthermore, when the option to talk back or ignore is present, no one is violating anyone's rights via speech. You seem to keep pushing the bar back so far that it becomes necessary to make imaginary laws against lawful activity.

 

[Publius1787]

It seems they think that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman (which means they really do believe in "stand your ground"), or perhaps, Zimmerman attacked Martin. In either case, the facts do not support their claims.

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias. In any case, if you believe Trayvon was justified in assaulting Zimmerman, you also must believe in "stand your ground," and thus, the op of this thread.

 

[Billo_Really]

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias.

We all heard Zimmerman's phone call bitching about some guy walking through his neighborhood and the confrontation happened after that.

It was none of Zimmerman's god-damn business what Martin was doing and he's got no legal right to stick his fuckin' nose in what Martin was doing. It is not illegal, to walk through a neighborhood on a public street. It is illegal, for anyone to stop it without probable cause. And ones own racist views, is not probable cause.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.""

Thomas Jefferson in letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

The day that the defense of one's own life is no longer a recognized unalienable right is the day you can make changes to it. Your quoting the guy to wrote "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT," ... among them (Unalienable Rights) are "LIFE ..." I don't see Jefferson changing his mind. Nor do I see him disagreeing with John Locke who he once referred to as among the trinity of the greatest men who ever lived. Do you? Indeed, the very guy ... no .... the very BOOK (Cited in the OP) ... Jefferson stole from when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. But lets not allow the facts to get in the way of our biases.

Why did you post a picture of Zimmerman with bruises, but not a picture of Martin with bullet holes?

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you really that ignorant of the facts?

Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his car. Martin turned around and confronted Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman hadn't made the initial contact, Martin wouldn't of turned around.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why did you post a picture of Zimmerman with bruises, but not a picture of Martin with bullet holes?

Why are they treating Zimmerman in the same vein as Thomas Paine?

 

[Publius1787]

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias.

We all heard Zimmerman's phone call bitching about some guy walking through his neighborhood and the confrontation happened after that.

It was none of Zimmerman's god-damn business what Martin was doing and he's got no legal right to stick his fuckin' nose in what Martin was doing. It is not illegal, to walk through a neighborhood on a public street. It is illegal, for anyone to stop it without probable cause. And ones own racist views, is not probable cause.

It is illegal for law enforcement to stop you without probable cause. It is not illegal for a private citizen to talk to you without probable cause. Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer, and did not physically stop or hold Trayvon. Nothing illegal happened until someone hit the other.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It seems they think that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman (which means they really do believe in "stand your ground"), or perhaps, Zimmerman attacked Martin. In either case, the facts do not support their claims.

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias. In any case, if you believe Trayvon was justified in assaulting Zimmerman, you also must believe in "stand your ground," and thus, the op of this thread.

Since you are admitting that there is no way to determine who started the physical conflict,

stand your ground cannot be meaningfully applied. You can't pick a fight with someone, then later pull out your gun and kill them,

and then claim self-defense.

 

[Publius1787]

"""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.""

Thomas Jefferson in letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

The day that the defense of one's own life is no longer a recognized unalienable right is the day you can make changes to it. Your quoting the guy to wrote "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT," ... among them (Unalienable Rights) are "LIFE ..." I don't see Jefferson changing his mind. Nor do I see him disagreeing with John Locke who he once referred to as among the trinity of the greatest men who ever lived. Do you? Indeed, the very guy ... no .... the very BOOK (Cited in the OP) ... Jefferson stole from when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. But lets not allow the facts to get in the way of our biases.

Why did you post a picture of Zimmerman with bruises, but not a picture of Martin with bullet holes?

Is it safe to say that bruises caused the bullet hole? NOT HOLE(S). Unless your counting the exit wound.

 

[Billo_Really]

Since you are admitting that there is no way to determine who started the physical conflict,

stand your ground cannot be meaningfully applied. You can't pick a fight with someone, then later pull out your gun and kill them,

and then claim self-defense.

"Your Honor, it was victim precipitated violence!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the thousandth time, all we know for certain is that the jury let Zimmerman off.

We do not know, from the perspective of justice, whether or not Zimmerman got away with murder.

All of these ad nauseum attempts to expand the jury decision from a legal finding into a grandiose, omniscient full vindication of a man who surely did no wrong is,

well, nauseating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The day that the defense of one's own life is no longer a recognized unalienable right is the day you can make changes to it. Your quoting the guy to wrote "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT," ... among them (Unalienable Rights) are "LIFE ..." I don't see Jefferson changing his mind. Nor do I see him disagreeing with John Locke who he once referred to as among the trinity of the greatest men who ever lived. Do you? Indeed, the very guy ... no .... the very BOOK (Cited in the OP) ... Jefferson stole from when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. But lets not allow the facts to get in the way of our biases.

Why did you post a picture of Zimmerman with bruises, but not a picture of Martin with bullet holes?

Is it safe to say that bruises caused the bullet hole? NOT HOLE(S). Unless your counting the exit wound.

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?

 

[Billo_Really]

For the thousandth time, all we know for certain is that the jury let Zimmerman off.

We do not know, from the perspective of justice, whether or not Zimmerman got away with murder.

All of these ad nauseum attempts to expand the jury decision from a legal finding into a grandiose, omniscient full vindication of a man who surely did no wrong is,

well, nauseating.

It will probably go the same way OJ did.

He'll lose the civil suit.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

John Locke on Stand Your Ground

I don't see asking questions or approaching as aggressing. Do you?

You do realize that by Zimmerman's own written statement there were no questions asked, right? There were no announcements, conversation, dialogue or even shouting.

Zimmerman wrote down that Trayvon "emerged from the darkness and said 'You got a problem? and I said no".

That was it according to Zimmerman. Google his police statement. It's online and in black and white, no pun intended.

Where did you hear that Zimmerman gave Trayvon warnings or explanations or anything?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Jefferson also said about letting those long gone dictate the law to us:

The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident.

This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation.

They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority.

I think that translates roughly into 'fuck tradition'.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

For the thousandth time, all we know for certain is that the jury let Zimmerman off.

We do not know, from the perspective of justice, whether or not Zimmerman got away with murder.

All of these ad nauseum attempts to expand the jury decision from a legal finding into a grandiose, omniscient full vindication of a man who surely did no wrong is,

well, nauseating.

It will probably go the same way OJ did.

He'll lose the civil suit.

Zimmerman has to testify if there is a civil suit, which I bet a gazillion bucks there will be. Won't cost the Martin family a dime, either.

So the next time the murderer shows his face in public, it will most likely be in a court room again.

 

[Billo_Really]

What Jefferson also said about letting those long gone dictate the law to us:

The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident.

This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation.

They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority.

I think that translates roughly into 'fuck tradition'.

Or maybe, this is part of some GOP master plan to get the Hispanic vote in 2016?

 

[Billo_Really]

Zimmerman has to testify if there is a civil suit, which I bet a gazillion bucks there will be. Won't cost the Martin family a dime, either.

So the next time the murderer shows his face in public, it will most likely be in a court room again.

Or at an immigration office.

It would be funny if he turned out to be an illegal?

Has anyone seen his birth certificate?

 

[Pheonixops]

It seems they think that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman (which means they really do believe in "stand your ground"), or perhaps, Zimmerman attacked Martin. In either case, the facts do not support their claims.

Zimmerman walked up to Martin; Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman caused the confrontation.

Says who? Shown by what evidence? And why does it matter? Neither is illegal. Please don't tell me that the foundation of your legal theory is who approached whom and not who assaulted, or attempted to assault, whom. Indeed, the only legal question is who assaulted whom, or, who attempted to assault whom, first. That question cannot be answered with the evidence presented. Any attempt to answer it definitively is impossible. Hence, reasonable doubt. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely subjective reasoning backed by some sort of bias. In any case, if you believe Trayvon was justified in assaulting Zimmerman, you also must believe in "stand your ground," and thus, the op of this thread.

I think the whole "legal theory" issue is pretty tricky. I take my dogs for a walk around 4:50am, if some guy in a truck started following me around, my alert level would be pretty elevated, I think anyone who denies that may be a little dishonest, especially if one thought that the person was "creepy". If I then try to avoid the guy and he keeps following me in his vehicle, I am DEFINITELY thinking that there's going to be a REAL problem, if the guy then gets out of his truck to continue his pursuit and he's not a police officer, I am definitely thinking that this may be a violent confrontation and the only options available would to be a victim, run, or be proactive and get the first strike in so I can prevail. Calling the police at the point the guy gets out of his vehicle would not help my immediate situation.

Now, if I am driving to the store and I see a shady guy walking down the street (there are plenty here and I would be busy) , I may look at him to get a description and make a note of it, I may double back and and or watch him from a distance as to be non confrontational, if he sees me and reaches for his waistband, I am DEFINITELY not going to keep following him! That's not my job, it's the job of the police officers. I am certainly not going to leave the safety of my vehicle to pursue the guy on foot, once again that's not my job and I would know that if the guy was possibly "armed", I could be walking into an ambush.
The above is why, I feel that zimmerman pushed the issue and was the aggressor, the police even told him that if he didn't get out of his truck, they wouldn't be there interviewing him. I watched the video of the interrogation on Nancy Grace this afternoon.