Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More stand your ground controversy brewing in soflo.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by jose830 View Post
    just heard on the radio right now that they found traces
    of drugs on Trayvons system the day he died...Marijuana
    because people with marijuana in their system deserved to get gun down by racist rent a cops.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by jose830 View Post
      just heard on the radio right now that they found traces
      of drugs on Trayvons system the day he died...Marijuana
      so he's drugged out walking around with his hoodie on @ night in a neighborhood where theres been robberies... beats Zimmerman half to death and people still pretend to be blind to the facts

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Sweet Tooth
        the law should never EVER punish the victim from defending themself.

        ever.

        everyone has the right to make their own choice of whether to run or not.
        If you dont choose to run, dont claim you were "standing you're ground"

        She had a way out, yet she choose to come back and fire her gun. She went from victim to suspect by doing that

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by MANIAC310 View Post
          so he's drugged out walking around with his hoodie on @ night in a neighborhood where theres been robberies... beats Zimmerman half to death and people still pretend to be blind to the facts
          Have you ever smoked weed before? It doesn't cause you to be violent. I'm not saying Martin didn't attack Zimmerman but if he did it wasn't because of weed. Besides, the stuff stays in your system for about 30 days depending on your body type. Martin could have smoked weeks before the incident occurred.

          Either way a lot more facts are being released now and it's seems to me as though these facts are helping Zimmerman's case. I wouldn't be surprised if he is acquitted.

          Comment


          • #15
            I think making laws like stand your ground & others only breed confusion & controversy. The law IMO seemed overly protective of Zimmerman as opposed to this woman.

            But then again the justice system always favored the rich. If she took the 1st deal they offered, 20 years wouldn't have been on the table. But the woman believed she genuinely was not guilty & paid the price.

            In the wake of this tragedy & what happened in the Martin case, lawmakers need to amend that law. It will only continue to get worse.

            Comment


            • #16
              Theres quite a few differences between this and the Zimmerman case. Big one being the fact that she left the area of danger, got her gun, and came back with it. That is a huge difference, and I have to agree with that having merit in regard to a guilty verdict.

              Another thing I think didnt help her was this...
              Taken from the article

              "According to Mitchell Stone, a Jacksonville defense attorney who has tried numerous stand your ground and domestic violence cases, there were several problems with Alexander's case. First, according to court documents, Alexander violated her bail by returning to the home where the shooting incident took place several months later.

              "A lot of people would say, if she's so afraid of him, what's she doing going back there?" says Stone."

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Sweet Tooth
                actually not running is what standing your ground means.

                now i know nothing about this case.

                but as a principle , victims should not be required to run.


                that's all the law is.

                it's a law to protect victims from being punished for defending themself.


                the vigilante stuff shouldn't apply.
                Thats not the law tho

                A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first

                She completely threw that out the window when she didnt run and returned with a gun

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Sweet Tooth
                  i wasn't talking about this case.

                  i was making a general statement about how stand your ground law makes sense.

                  don't know about this case. don't care.


                  i'm talking about in general. a victim shouldn't be required to run. a victim not running shouldn't place the blame on them.
                  This wasnt from the case, this is a basic definition of stand your ground law.

                  And what you think has no effect on what the law is

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Sweet Tooth
                    and the basic definition of the law is that you are under no requirement to run away.

                    hence stand your ground.

                    standing your ground means not running away.
                    But it doesnt mean stand there, walk away to get a gun, then come back and fire it

                    And its nice how you make up your own silly definitions of the law Taking the name of the law literally

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Sweet Tooth
                      wtf do you think "without an obligation to retreat first" mean?

                      it means the victim is under no obligation to run away.
                      It means you are allowed to use force if the option of running away doesnt present itself

                      Not that hard to understand

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP