John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Dirk the Daring]

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.

'Pick a fight with...'

'grandiose, omniscient...'

You were right about one thing; 'nauseating.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

'Pick a fight with...'

You know this of course b/c you were there?

I am not referring to the specific case. I'm pointing out that under the law if you started the fight,

you can't then shoot the guy you started a fight with and then claim some sort of self-defense, including a stand your ground self defense.

Why don't you fuck with the people who are insisting that Zimmerman was justified because he was attacked and getting beat up, i.e., he was an innocent victim?

Were they there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And notice that John Locke reasons upon Individuals, which are real, and not "groups" which are fictions of the mind. This, above all, strikes fear in the hearts of the Social Engineers.

So gun owners in America do not represent a 'group'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Those 'facts' were never established. This is the problem here. Ignorant rightwing nuts manufacturing myths.

 

[Vox]

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.

'Pick a fight with...'

You know this of course b/c you were there?

I am not referring to the specific case. I'm pointing out that under the law if you started the fight,

you can't then shoot the guy you started a fight with and then claim some sort of self-defense, including a stand your ground self defense.

Why don't you fuck with the people who are insisting that Zimmerman was justified because he was attacked and getting beat up, i.e., he was an innocent victim?

Were they there?

under which law? clearly not under the existing Florida one.

Oh, you are talking about the law of a street fight. That law does not apply here.

 

[Vox]

And notice that John Locke reasons upon Individuals, which are real, and not "groups" which are fictions of the mind. This, above all, strikes fear in the hearts of the Social Engineers.

So gun owners in America do not represent a 'group'?

no, they do not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Since blacks commit 49% of all murders with 93% of those against other blacks. I'm assuming that they use stand your ground all the time.


Tell me how this won't = more blacks in prison?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The fact that Trayvon walked back towards Zimmerman and attacked him makes you trayvonites wrong.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And notice that John Locke reasons upon Individuals, which are real, and not "groups" which are fictions of the mind. This, above all, strikes fear in the hearts of the Social Engineers.

So gun owners in America do not represent a 'group'?

no, they do not.

Gun owners, as a group, are a fiction, that represent all individual (real-life) gun owners. There is no real life entity (person, animal, physical object) that contains or embodies all individual persons that possess a firearm.

However, since you seem to disagree, I would ask that you present what real object embodies all persons who possess firearms.

 

[Vox]

So gun owners in America do not represent a 'group'?

no, they do not.

Gun owners, as a group, are a fiction, that represent all individual (real-life) gun owners. There is no real life entity (person, animal, physical object) that contains or embodies all individual persons that possess a firearm.

However, since you seem to disagree, I would ask that you present what real object embodies all persons who possess firearms.

I know. See, leftist libtards can not live as an individual and need to lump everyone into a "group". They are too scared to think for themselves, so collectivist drive is a necessity - they can not fathom an idea that some people do not ever need a "group" and hate collectivist's reasoning.

 

[Vox]

So gun owners in America do not represent a 'group'?

no, they do not.

Gun owners, as a group, are a fiction, that represent all individual (real-life) gun owners. There is no real life entity (person, animal, physical object) that contains or embodies all individual persons that possess a firearm.

However, since you seem to disagree, I would ask that you present what real object embodies all persons who possess firearms.

I seem to disagree? Are you sure?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

no, they do not.

Gun owners, as a group, are a fiction, that represent all individual (real-life) gun owners. There is no real life entity (person, animal, physical object) that contains or embodies all individual persons that possess a firearm.

However, since you seem to disagree, I would ask that you present what real object embodies all persons who possess firearms.

I seem to disagree? Are you sure?

Not you, NYcarbineer

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Those 'facts' were never established. This is the problem here. Ignorant rightwing nuts manufacturing myths.

How absolutely right you are; it was obviously during this thread that 'rightwing nuts' were 'manufacturing myths' about Zimmerman calling Trayvon a 'fucking ******' while on the phone with 911. Oh, except for the fact that it never happened. Score that one to nothing more than a 'rightwing nut manufactured myth.' It was another 'rightwing manufactured myth' that Zim 'picked a fight with' Trayvon. Yep, that one came from a rightwinger also didn't it??

This is the problem, liberal 'nuts' like NYC can't keep their made-up facts straight in their heads...

 

[Dirk the Daring]

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.

'Pick a fight with...'

You know this of course b/c you were there?

I am not referring to the specific case. I'm pointing out that under the law if you started the fight,

you can't then shoot the guy you started a fight with and then claim some sort of self-defense, including a stand your ground self defense.

Why don't you fuck with the people who are insisting that Zimmerman was justified because he was attacked and getting beat up, i.e., he was an innocent victim?

Were they there?

SYG was not included in the defense of George Zimmerman. Once again, please PLEASE know your facts before engaging in online debates with total strangers on the interW3bz

 

[Lakhota]

Zimmerman jury instructions would have been entirely different before Stand Your Ground became law in Florida. Before SYG, Zimmerman would have been required to do everything possible, including retreating, before attempting to use deadly force.

 

[The T]

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).

Wrong answer Trayvon incited the ASSAULT. Mr Zimmerman was protecting his neighborhood from someone he didn't recognize.

*TRY AGAIN*

 

[Vox]

Zimmerman jury instructions would have been entirely different before Stand Your Ground became law in Florida. Before SYG, Zimmerman would have been required to do everything possible, including retreating, before attempting to use deadly force.

that is true.

however, one can not retreat when one is being on the ground and beaten up by somebody sitting on him, so SYG or no SYG at this point is irrelevant

 

[Billo_Really]

that is true.

however, one can not retreat when one is being on the ground and beaten up by somebody sitting on him, so SYG or no SYG at this point is irrelevant

And one is not standing, when they are following.