John Locke on Stand Your Ground

[Dirk the Daring]

go home.

So you can't answer a direct question?

I'll tell you this, I was going home, but because of your bullshit comment, I think I'll stay awhile.

Happy?

That was his answer to YOUR question numb nuts. And you had the audacity to ask me if I 'got comprehension issues?'

Imbecile...

 

[Dirk the Daring]

stupid troll, fuck off

So you won't answer a direct question?

At least I finally got an honest answer out of you.

You have no concept of the word 'honest.' Or a great many other words if I had to guess. Do yourself a favor a shut the h3ll up, you're embarrassing yourself, and the rest of humanity, with every post you make. Here's a suggestion, turn off your computer, educate yourself, and twelve years from now you can turn your computer back on. Deal?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

1. He got out of his truck to check where he was
2. He want back to or nearly to his truck
3. Trayvon came back and attacked
4. Trayvon was on top of him

Why are people so dishonest?

Go check where the "fuckin coon" was.

That right there shows he's a fuckin racist with hostile intent.

Please show where it was proven he said that.

Because the experts say he didn't.

You're wasting your time OS, POB 'heard it with his own ears!' Despite what any 'expert' (another word POB probably doesn't know the meaning of) might say. Remember everyone; 'own ears' > Expert, everytime.

 

[Billo_Really]

Please show where it was proven he said that.

Because the experts say he didn't.

I heard it when they played the recording of his 911 call.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Residents of a neighborhood, have no legal authority to police who comes in to (and out of) their block.

You protect things from a threat, a threat is a crime, crime is breaking the law and Martin wasn't breaking any laws.

And if he's not breaking any laws, Zimmerman can go fuck himself!

In which way are you using "police."

I could very easily exchange the word "police" with "watch" to get the following sentence:

"Residents of a neighborhood, have no legal authority to watch who comes in to (and out of) their block."

You can not mean "police" as in "enforce," because there was never any incident in which Zimmerman attempted to "remove" Trayvon from being in the neighborhood, or "prevent" him from entering.

So how are you using "police," because you are either intentionally confusing the legal concept of "enforcement" with the normal and mundane action of "watching" and then claiming that regular citizens are not legally permitted to "enforce," which is correct, if a citizen was actually trying to enforce something --- which they weren't.

According to you, we're not allowed to call 911, since we are not legally permitted to observe our surroundings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to construct an analogy that what you said:

"A group of musicians have no proper authority to CONDUCT the orchestra in order to notify nearby musicians that they are out of tune."

However true it may be that "a group of musicians do not have the authority to conduct the orchestra"

it has NOTHING do with ALERTING a nearby member that he is out of tune.

Now let's look at the proper sentence:

"A group of musicians have no proper authority to ALERT the orchestra in order to notify nearby musicians that they are out of tune."

Wow, didn't that dramatically change the sentence --- and derive one dumb fucking falsehood.
--------------------------------------

If you're not an aspiring Libtard, I want you to meticulously examine this post, because this is how the "intellectual elite" CONTORTS information and INTENTIONALLY confuses their PREY.

Combine this with their distortion tactics (falsely claiming that correlation = causation, is the most common distortion), hysteria tactics (the X card, ie race, religion, ethnic), omission tactics (not citing the abundance of evidence against their own statement, in order to circumvent scrutiny), Contortion tactics (replacing words with separate words, which fool the listener/reader into accepting a false claim from a true premise, which is what THIS PARTICULAR POST is about) or Circular Reasoning --- which is achieved in two different ways: 1) I am right, therefore I am right OR 2) Rephrasing their argument with different words to justify what they previously said.

Of course the are other ways, like LYING and the like (deflection for example), but MOST people actually can see through such ruses, so those othe methods aren't much of a threat. The ones which I named to you are the THREATENING ONES because they can fool you, or even me, and do continue to fool both you and myself from time to time, and always will, because that's their specialty, DECEPTION, which is meant to alter you PERCEPTION.

 

[Billo_Really]

You have no concept of the word 'honest.' Or a great many other words if I had to guess. Do yourself a favor a shut the h3ll up, you're embarrassing yourself, and the rest of humanity, with every post you make. Here's a suggestion, turn off your computer, educate yourself, and twelve years from now you can turn your computer back on. Deal?

No. No deal. When people tell me to shut up, that's my cue to talk more. Because you have to be disciplined. It's wrong to try to tell others how to live their lives the way you see fit. And God put me on this planet to show fuckers like you just how wrong that is.

Que pasa, mutha?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You have no concept of the word 'honest.' Or a great many other words if I had to guess. Do yourself a favor a shut the h3ll up, you're embarrassing yourself, and the rest of humanity, with every post you make. Here's a suggestion, turn off your computer, educate yourself, and twelve years from now you can turn your computer back on. Deal?

No. No deal. When people tell me to shut up, that's my cue to talk more. Because you have to be disciplined. It's wrong to try to tell others how to live their lives the way you see fit. And God put me on this planet to show fuckers like you just how wrong that is.

Que pasa, mutha?

So you're going to ignore post 165?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Please show where it was proven he said that.

Because the experts say he didn't.

I heard it when they played the recording of his 911 call.

Strange how you heard what the experts, and even CNN later, said wasn't there.

 

[OriginalShroom]

And who's the witness to all that?

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".....

 

[Billo_Really]

So you're going to ignore post 165?

Post what? You're going to make me go back and look?

Okay, wait right here, because I don't ignore anything that isn't worth ignoring.

I'm back!

I'm using the word "police" as "acting in an official manner under the color of authority".

You cannot stalk someone who has broken no laws.

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

 

[Billo_Really]

Strange how you heard what the experts, and even CNN later, said wasn't there.

I'm sorry, I'm going on what I personally heard and not what they said.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

When people tell me to shut up, that's my cue to talk more. Because I'm an idiot.

Took the liberty of fixing that for ya...

 

[Billo_Really]

When people tell me to shut up, that's my cue to talk more. Because I'm an idiot.

Took the liberty of fixing that for ya...

I would've used the word "asshole".

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Wow, check this out;

Obama co-sponsored legislation strengthening Illinois' "stand your ground" law - Illinois Review

Obama co-sponsored legislation strengthening Illinois' "stand your ground" law

CHICAGO - This past week President Obama publicly urged the reexamination of state self-defense laws (see remarks below). However, nine years ago then-State Sen. Barack Obama actually co-sponsored a bill that strengthened Illinois' 1961 "stand your ground" law.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

When people tell me to shut up, that's my cue to talk more. Because I'm an idiot.

Took the liberty of fixing that for ya...

I would've used the word "asshole".

Eh, you can't be an asshole, b/c then you and I would be too much alike... h3ll, I'd probably even buy you a beer in that case!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you're going to ignore post 165?

Post what? You're going to make me go back and look?

Okay, wait right here, because I don't ignore anything that isn't worth ignoring.

I'm back!

I'm using the word "police" as "acting in an official manner under the color of authority".

You cannot stalk someone who has broken no laws.

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

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

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.

 

[BobPlumb]

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

 

[Lakhota]

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

That is also my understanding.

 

[Cowman]

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?

 

[OriginalShroom]

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?

WRONG.

Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

Martin was the aggressor when he first verbally confronted Zimmerman, then physically assaulted him.