General Discussion

chowder66

(12,204 posts)

49. I don't agree

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:41 PM

Jul 2013

It should be based on lack of restraint.

If a person can be shown that they did not use reasonable restraint in maybe more than one instance then they should not be able to claim self defense. I'm sure it would have to get deeper than that but in the case of Zimmerman ;
My opinion is that Zimmerman refused to show restraint and defied it.

He became suspicious based on fear and prejudice, which led him to follow Martin, Martin was not doing anything wrong. "Looking at houses" while talking on the phone is legal activity.

Zimmerman called the police who were on their way and probably knew how long it would take police to get there based on past calls and dispatches.

He got out of his car which led to the police dispatcher to tell him that they didn't need him to do that. Cops are on their way.

He continued to pursue Trayvon Martin knowing full well that he was carrying a firearm, he called the police, they were on their way and the police didn't need him to follow him. He defied, defied again and defied again based on fear, prejudice and obsession to pursue an innocent boy.

Of course the last bit of restraint would have been to not pull the trigger but it should have NEVER have gotten that far in the first place.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. That should be the law. [View all] Yavin4 Jul 2013 OP

Ha! That was my thought when I saw your title. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #1

not sure if you mean that if you talk to someone or call them a name loli phabay Jul 2013 #2

If you provoke a confrontation.... Yavin4 Jul 2013 #3

take zimmerman out of the equation as writing for one situation makes bad law loli phabay Jul 2013 #4

That's not what he meant at all. Rex Jul 2013 #5

i think he did, he states that if you provoke a confrontation then you lose self defence rights loli phabay Jul 2013 #9

Vigilantes should lose their right to " self defence" darkangel218 Jul 2013 #12

Funny, be definition NONE of those are confrontations. Rex Jul 2013 #15

I would hope a jury could figure it out. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #24

hopefully, not so sure though if this thread is anything to go by. loli phabay Jul 2013 #41

no shit. what a disappointment when it comes to critical thinking cali Jul 2013 #52

Holy cow..a voice of reason.... pipoman Jul 2013 #89

No. What I am saying is... Yavin4 Jul 2013 #8

so if he is trying to kill one of them or badly injure them then they cant defend themselves loli phabay Jul 2013 #11

No obviously that is not it at all. Rex Jul 2013 #14

But loli is right. The offshoot of the law would be that Alec Baldwin could... JVS Jul 2013 #23

Sure they can. But they should then be arrested for murder/manslaughter. uppityperson Jul 2013 #17

not if it was a legitimate use of self defence, and hopefully if it went to court loli phabay Jul 2013 #39

And there is the problem, defining " legitimate use " uppityperson Jul 2013 #40

yup, but we should at least have the option of getting the chance to articulate it. loli phabay Jul 2013 #43

And if the only one left alive is the instigator, they should not be told "there, there" and let go. uppityperson Jul 2013 #53

Okay, so then you've just made murder legal. Yavin4 Jul 2013 #19

but your idea makes it so you don't even have to start a fight ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #25

If I look at you funny and you say "what are you looking at?" would you be forfeiting your self... JVS Jul 2013 #32

chicken and egg comes to mind loli phabay Jul 2013 #34

under Yavin4's propsal ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #44

so we're back to ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #13

its got to be physical contact of a violent nature and then you have fear of grevious injury loli phabay Jul 2013 #16

So, if I start a fight with you and let you beat me Yavin4 Jul 2013 #20

what your saying is that i provoke you youby doing some action then you attack me loli phabay Jul 2013 #26

What do you plan on calling your new law? May I suggest Right to Take the Bait? JVS Jul 2013 #28

well, i do agree if someone starts a physical confrontation ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #21

thats what i take from it as well, they may mean someone different but that is how i read it loli phabay Jul 2013 #33

You continue to mis-characterize what I am saying Yavin4 Jul 2013 #55

no... that is not what you initially said ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #64

From my OP Yavin4 Jul 2013 #68

From your OP ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #92

That is the way the law is. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #104

I don't agree chowder66 Jul 2013 #49

he called the Enterprise a garbage scow hfojvt Jul 2013 #97

If you provoke a hornets nest and get the shit stung out of you that is a consequence hobbit709 Jul 2013 #31

he heaven05 Jul 2013 #76

but legally what constitutes a provocation? cali Jul 2013 #30

Legally it has to be something illegal like a threat of violence or a physical assault. JVS Jul 2013 #37

He never said anything about name calling Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #22

well calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them loli phabay Jul 2013 #29

And calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them can be fear provoking so that uppityperson Jul 2013 #54

If some adult secondvariety Jul 2013 #61

And you will be guilty of assault. N/T GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #105

Doubt it. secondvariety Jul 2013 #107

Agree 100% Rex Jul 2013 #6

wtf.. you said the exact same thing darkangel218 Jul 2013 #10

I agree 100%. darkangel218 Jul 2013 #7

Totally 100% agree. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #18

yes, but that's so easy to say; so much harder to put into a practice cali Jul 2013 #48

Fuckin' A. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #27

uh... no ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #36

no, quite the opposite. it may make you feel righteous but it's not cali Jul 2013 #50

That is the Law except for in. SYG States bahrbearian Jul 2013 #35

Actually its not onenote Jul 2013 #78

So if a woman makes a sassy remark to her boyfriend and the guy starts whooping her ass she can't dkf Jul 2013 #38

bingo. there are dozens of examples along those lines. cali Jul 2013 #51

In your example, if a woman baits him into a fight, she can kill him, right? Yavin4 Jul 2013 #60

If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away) and he continues to beat her then yes. dkf Jul 2013 #65

"If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away)" Yavin4 Jul 2013 #67

If she "has" or "had"? dkf Jul 2013 #77

No, she shouldn't continue being beaten. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #106

+1 XemaSab Jul 2013 #79

You mean like the law already on the books in most states? X_Digger Jul 2013 #42

I think OP means getting rid of 2a and 2b JVS Jul 2013 #45

Yeah.. no. Somehow I don't think that's likely. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #47

I agree completely. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #46

Better: Shouldn't be able to use "Stand Your Grand" as a basis for self defense. Beartracks Jul 2013 #56

I think the problem here is not the self defense claim but the way it is used. last1standing Jul 2013 #57

Physical violence is not an acceptable response to verbal provocation. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #58

So, it would be okay for a photographer to kill Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn Yavin4 Jul 2013 #66

I refer you to the phrase "defend yourself". Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #75

Kick and rec. JoeyT Jul 2013 #59

The flaw in that plan is that when one person ends up dead SoCalDem Jul 2013 #62

It can put someone with a legitimate self defense in a tough spot. Deep13 Jul 2013 #70

when there is a class/race difference, it's a more predictable outcome SoCalDem Jul 2013 #71

true. suburban juries will cut a white defendant some slack... Deep13 Jul 2013 #73

That's the law in Virginia. ileus Jul 2013 #63

Under Common Law, lethal self defense can only be used... Deep13 Jul 2013 #69

+1. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #72

That's why the burden should be on the defendant by a preponderance treestar Jul 2013 #74

Problem with putting burden on defendant by a preponderance onenote Jul 2013 #82

Zimmerman said he was walking back to his car XemaSab Jul 2013 #86

that is not so; traditionally the burden was on the defendant treestar Jul 2013 #95

If you look for trouble and find it... LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #80

Walking home from the store? B Stieg Jul 2013 #88

No, driving around looking for black kids to stalk (nt) LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #102

Damn straight. Here's the change in the Florida jury instructions, pre- and post Stand Your Ground B Stieg Jul 2013 #81

Same verdict for Zimmerman pre and post SYG. dkf Jul 2013 #83

How do you figure? B Stieg Jul 2013 #87

Z was pinned per testimony. No way to retreat. Ergo same verdict. dkf Jul 2013 #90

Pinned? By whose testimony? Zimmerman's white friend? And what about prior to that? B Stieg Jul 2013 #96

John Good was Zimmerman's friend? I didn't know they knew each other. dkf Jul 2013 #99

Not according to... B Stieg Jul 2013 #101

I would say, anyone who throws the first punch LittleBlue Jul 2013 #84

Self-Defense and Stand your Ground are different legal concepts. RomanceWritR Jul 2013 #85

IT'S COMMON SENSE but as my mom used to say, "common sense ain't all that common". nt Ecumenist Jul 2013 #91

Snuff The Witness Bearheim Jul 2013 #93

I'm sure paranoid gun humping cowards will disagree Skittles Jul 2013 #94

for christs sake A DISPATCHER IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT pasto76 Jul 2013 #98

I'm a strong believer in don't start nothing, won't be nothing but you must define TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #100

I generally agree, but defining provoked is difficult. aikoaiko Jul 2013 #103