John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Billo_Really]

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.

A few months ago, in the middle of the afternoon, I was driving through a neighborhood somewhat quickly, but I don't believe I was going above the speed limit, but did probably execute a few California Rolls, was confronted by a man, in a car, when I arrived at my destination.

He said to me, "You were speeding through the neighborhood and ran 5 stop signs! What if my kids were out there?" I told him, "It's one o'clock in the afternoon! Your kids should be in school, not playing out in the middle of the street! What kind of father are you?"

 

[Ernie S.]

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).

Absolute BULLSHIT! George Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon Martin. He observed him acting suspiciously, called for police and tried to maintain visual contact with him. He was told that police did not need him to follow the subject and began to return to his vehicle. Several minutes later, Zimmerman was confronted by Martin. Neither man had any reason to expect that the other was armed or unarmed for that matter.

If a youth came up to me on a dark sidewalk and confronted me, I would have to be prudent and assume he was.
Zimmerman likely felt somewhat threatened, but didn't display his weapon.

Martin punched him and knocked him to the ground and commenced raining down blows MMA style (Remember John Good?)

Zimmerman yelled for help, and tried to get away for about 40 seconds. Having exhausted all alternatives, he drew his weapon and fired.

You may believe any or all the theories you hear on HLN and BET, but the version I just related is supported by the facts and testimony heard at trial.

And Locke was not against wars, only starting them. He was for a quick and deadly end to wars once started.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

What contact?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

stand your ground cannot be meaningfully applied.

It wasn't.

 

[Billo_Really]

What contact?

The contact that happened after his foul-mouthed, racist phone call to the cops.

 

[Billo_Really]

Absolute BULLSHIT! George Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon Martin. He observed him acting suspiciously, called for police and tried to maintain visual contact with him. He was told that police did not need him to follow the subject and began to return to his vehicle. Several minutes later, Zimmerman was confronted by Martin. Neither man had any reason to expect that the other was armed or unarmed for that matter.

If a youth came up to me on a dark sidewalk and confronted me, I would have to be prudent and assume he was.
Zimmerman likely felt somewhat threatened, but didn't display his weapon.

Martin punched him and knocked him to the ground and commenced raining down blows MMA style (Remember John Good?)

Zimmerman yelled for help, and tried to get away for about 40 seconds. Having exhausted all alternatives, he drew his weapon and fired.

You may believe any or all the theories you hear on HLN and BET, but the version I just related is supported by the facts and testimony heard at trial.

And Locke was not against wars, only starting them. He was for a quick and deadly end to wars once started.

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.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

Once again, are you really that ignorant?

Inital contact was made by Martin, not Zimmerman when Martin walked up to Zimmerman and asked him if he had a problem.

Of course this was after Martin refered to Zimmerman as a Creepy ass Cracker.

You really need to know the facts before spouting opinions.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

Actually it WAS Zimmerman's business what Martin was doing that night.

Zimmerman was the Elected Captain of the Neighborhood watch.

After dark and an unknown person is walking from house to house instead of on the sidewalks.

Zimmerman did as he was supposed to, he called 911 to inform the police of a person acting suspisciously in a neighborhood with recent crime activity.

Why are you so constantly WRONG on the facts?

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually it WAS Zimmerman's business what Martin was doing that night.

Zimmerman was the Elected Captain of the Neighborhood watch.

After dark and an unknown person is walking from house to house instead of on the sidewalks.

Zimmerman did as he was supposed to, he called 911 to inform the police of a person acting suspisciously in a neighborhood with recent crime activity.

Why are you so constantly WRONG on the facts?

Neighborhood Watch Captain's do not have SCOTUS powers and therefore, do not have the authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

Walking through a neighborhood on a public street, is not a crime.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Absolute BULLSHIT! George Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon Martin. He observed him acting suspiciously, called for police and tried to maintain visual contact with him. He was told that police did not need him to follow the subject and began to return to his vehicle. Several minutes later, Zimmerman was confronted by Martin. Neither man had any reason to expect that the other was armed or unarmed for that matter.

If a youth came up to me on a dark sidewalk and confronted me, I would have to be prudent and assume he was.
Zimmerman likely felt somewhat threatened, but didn't display his weapon.

Martin punched him and knocked him to the ground and commenced raining down blows MMA style (Remember John Good?)

Zimmerman yelled for help, and tried to get away for about 40 seconds. Having exhausted all alternatives, he drew his weapon and fired.

You may believe any or all the theories you hear on HLN and BET, but the version I just related is supported by the facts and testimony heard at trial.

And Locke was not against wars, only starting them. He was for a quick and deadly end to wars once started.

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.

You obviously don't care what the facts are as indicated by this post alone. All you are is a sheep following the lead the Racists in the Media and country.

I wonder how long a journalist would last calling Obama a "White Black" or a "Self described African-American"? as they are with Zimmerman and the "White Hispanic" and "Self desribed Hispanic".

 

[OriginalShroom]

Actually it WAS Zimmerman's business what Martin was doing that night.

Zimmerman was the Elected Captain of the Neighborhood watch.

After dark and an unknown person is walking from house to house instead of on the sidewalks.

Zimmerman did as he was supposed to, he called 911 to inform the police of a person acting suspisciously in a neighborhood with recent crime activity.

Why are you so constantly WRONG on the facts?

Neighborhood Watch Captain's do not have SCOTUS powers and therefore, do not have the authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

He wasn't . The only person denying anyone's rights was Martin denying Zimmerman his when he punched him.

 

[Billo_Really]

Once again, are you really that ignorant?

Inital contact was made by Martin, not Zimmerman when Martin walked up to Zimmerman and asked him if he had a problem.

Of course this was after Martin refered to Zimmerman as a Creepy ass Cracker.

You really need to know the facts before spouting opinions.

If Zimmerman was minding his own business, he wouldn't of got Martins attention.

 

[Billo_Really]

He wasn't .

Then what was Martin responding to?

This is silly. Zimmerman's phone call to the cops, was a denial of Martin's civil rights.

If I'm not breaking any laws, you got no fuckin' business reporting me to the AHJ.

 

[Billo_Really]

You obviously don't care what the facts are as indicated by this post alone. All you are is a sheep following the lead the Racists in the Media and country.

I wonder how long a journalist would last calling Obama a "White Black" or a "Self described African-American"? as they are with Zimmerman and the "White Hispanic" and "Self desribed Hispanic".

I'd call him a "mud baby". But I wouldn't call the cops on someone just walking down the street.

And I'm not following anyone. I heard Zimmerman's call to the cops and was pretty offended by it.

 

[OriginalShroom]

He wasn't .

Then what was Martin responding to?

This is silly. Zimmerman's phone call to the cops, was a denial of Martin's civil rights.

If I'm not breaking any laws, you got no fuckin' business reporting me to the AHJ.

Martin was responding to the "Creepy ass Cracker" that was following him.

Zimmerman had every right to call the police. As the Elected Neighborhood watch Captain, it was his job to call the police when someone is acting suspiciously. Which Martin was when he was not walking on the sidewalk, but next to houses that he didn't live in.

Your use of foul language doesn't advance your argument one bit.

 

[OriginalShroom]

You obviously don't care what the facts are as indicated by this post alone. All you are is a sheep following the lead the Racists in the Media and country.

I wonder how long a journalist would last calling Obama a "White Black" or a "Self described African-American"? as they are with Zimmerman and the "White Hispanic" and "Self desribed Hispanic".

I'd call him a "mud baby". But I wouldn't call the cops on someone just walking down the street.

And I'm not following anyone. I heard Zimmerman's call to the cops and was pretty offended by it.

If that call offended you, you are too easily offended to be out in the real world or to be discussing politics with adults.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Actually it WAS Zimmerman's business what Martin was doing that night.

Zimmerman was the Elected Captain of the Neighborhood watch.

After dark and an unknown person is walking from house to house instead of on the sidewalks.

Zimmerman did as he was supposed to, he called 911 to inform the police of a person acting suspisciously in a neighborhood with recent crime activity.

Why are you so constantly WRONG on the facts?

Neighborhood Watch Captain's do not have SCOTUS powers and therefore, do not have the authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

He wasn't . The only person denying anyone's rights was Martin denying Zimmerman his when he punched him.

Let me edit this and start with the end first, since most wingnuts only read the first line of anything: Zimmerman's HOA paid out over $1,000,000 to Trayvon Martin's parents in a settlement, which means the HOA did NOT want to go to court. Why? Because Zimmerman was in violation of the HOA rules: No carrying of firearms while on WATCH. Because HOAs cannot afford the liability and insurance companies won't insure.


What part of the word "Watch" do you not get into your bird-size brain? You got "Neighborhood" down but you seem to think "Watch" means "Follow" and "Confront". Get a fucking dictionary and look it up.

 

[Billo_Really]

Martin was responding to the "Creepy ass Cracker" that was following him.

Exactly! Zimmerman was following Martin. He was the action; Martin was the reaction. Zimmerman had no legal justification to be following Martin, because Martin wasn't breaking any laws.

Zimmerman had every right to call the police. As the Elected Neighborhood watch Captain, it was his job to call the police when someone is acting suspiciously. Which Martin was when he was not walking on the sidewalk, but next to houses that he didn't live in.

Walking down the street, is not suspicious activity.

Your use of foul language doesn't advance your argument one bit.

That's just the way I talk, it's not meant to advance anything. It's more like a gage of intensity or emphasis.

I find it foul and offensive for anyone who considers themselves an American, chooses to dismiss one of our core values that a "man is innocent, until proven guilty".

 

[OriginalShroom]

Neighborhood Watch Captain's do not have SCOTUS powers and therefore, do not have the authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

He wasn't . The only person denying anyone's rights was Martin denying Zimmerman his when he punched him.

What part of the word "Watch" do you not get into your bird-size brain? You got "Neighborhood" down but you seem to think "Watch" means "Follow" and "Confront". Get a fucking dictionary and look it up.

Zimmerman's HOA paid out over $1,000,000 to Trayvon Martin's parents in a settlement, which means the HOA did NOT want to go to court. Why?
Because Zimmerman was in violation of the HOA rules: No carrying of firearms while on WATCH. Because HOAs cannot afford the liability and insurance companies won't insure.

Once again..

Zimmerman did watch... In order to watch he had to follow. He did NOT confront. Martin Confronted.

Zimmerman was NOT on duty, he was on his way somewhere else that night when he saw Martin going from house to house after dark.

The fact that HOA Insurance company paid means nothing.

You seem to be as ignorant of the facts as BillO_ Really is.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Martin was responding to the "Creepy ass Cracker" that was following him.

Exactly! Zimmerman was following Martin. He was the action; Martin was the reaction. Zimmerman had no legal justification to be following Martin, because Martin wasn't breaking any laws.

Zimmerman had every right to call the police. As the Elected Neighborhood watch Captain, it was his job to call the police when someone is acting suspiciously. Which Martin was when he was not walking on the sidewalk, but next to houses that he didn't live in.

Walking down the street, is not suspicious activity.

Your use of foul language doesn't advance your argument one bit.

That's just the way I talk, it's not meant to advance anything. It's more like a gage of intensity or emphasis.

I find it foul and offensive for anyone who considers themselves an American, chooses to dismiss one of our core values that a "man is innocent, until proven guilty".

Once again...

Martin was NOT walking on the sidewalks. He was walking next to the houses. THAT looked suspicious to Zimmerman.

It would look suspicious to me also or to any rational and reasonable person.

When he called the police, he stated that Martin was acting supsiciously. He didn't say he was breaking any laws.

He was on the phone with the 911 Operator keeping them advised as to where the moving supiscious person was.

Following a person is not illegal. That doesn't give Martin the right to physically attack him and break his nose, especially when Zimmerman stopped following him and started returning to his own vehicle.