Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Originally Posted by Crotalus

It's called the Castle Law in Texas and I for one am glad it's here. There have been no problems with it since it was enacted and extends your home protection from prosecution to your car. You shouldn't be arrested for shooting a car jacker.

I don't know if this is included in the Florida law, but if you provoke or threaten the person before you shoot them the protection goes away.

Well, if a guy comes up to you when you are in your car and sticks a gun a few inches from you I don't think you are going to be going for a gun to shoot which means after he's in the car and driving away you shoot him then? What happens if you hit another car and hit someone and kill them? Or if the guy starts shooting back at you and hits someone because you provoked the gunbattle?

It can be a slippery slope. Bad laws all of them.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Well, if a guy comes up to you when you are in your car and sticks a gun a few inches from you I don't think you are going to be going for a gun to shoot which means after he's in the car and driving away you shoot him then? What happens if you hit another car and hit someone and kill them? Or if the guy starts shooting back at you and hits someone because you provoked the gunbattle?

It can be a slippery slope. Bad laws all of them.

No, this is all covered. If someone is running away with your property and if you think that the only way you can recover your property is to shoot, you can shoot.

If you accidentally shoot someone else, you're in trouble. If the guys shoots back and hits someone else, it's his problem.

I like these laws.

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

At $4.04 at gallon down the street; I will wait till he puts the can down first.
Don't want to take a chance of hitting the can & losing the gas.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

If he pointed a gun at me while he was taking the gas, damn right I would shoot him. He threatened me with lethal force and soon could do the same to someone else.

That's the justification used at the Mall shooting and it held up in court.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another..

Very slight difference there but it is a difference..

Now working off of that premise, let's say I came out of my appartment at the time Trayvon, was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, do you think I legally could have shot him ???? Not knowing any of the preceding circumstances

Yes. In that case you would be on the attack. ATTACK: to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

I agree it is semantics.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.

I've not experienced this at all with a Grand Jury. I have spent hundreds of hours presenting testimony and evidence before a Grand Jury. I'd like to know where you have had this experience.

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

Yes. In that case you would be on the attack. ATTACK: to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

I agree it is semantics.




I've not experienced this at all with a Grand Jury. I have spent hundreds of hours presenting testimony and evidence before a Grand Jury. I'd like to know where you have had this experience.

I was talking mainly of federal grand juries and I've spent hundreds of hours before them too. I've seen the same in state ones too though.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I was talking mainly of federal grand juries and I've spent hundreds of hours before them too. I've seen the same in state ones too though.

I know the old wives tale about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich for not having cheese. I guess my experience was with GJ was a bit different. I think we both agree the case has run amok.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

Not him or her shoot the can!!!

I think this is going to get more and more interesting as the facts come out,,,

We need to keep this thread going through the process and see if our perception changes as we learn what is presented...

Watched GMA this morning and their bias in this case was so transparent it was laughable...