State's Rights

[Cancel 2016.2]

Homeowners were previously protected under the common law.

Previously they were required to attempt to evade first. Now they are not.

Again, if you want to actually discuss this issue please refrain from this type of dumbassery.

and yet AGAIN, more stupidity from you. What part of wanting to analyze where the increase came from do you find to be 'dumbassery'??? You love making these proclamations, yet NEVER state what exactly it is that you find so wrong or stupid or offensive. Why is that Dung? You yourself shouted out that they increased three fold did you not? Do you even care WHY they increased?

 

[Phantasmal]

Homeowners were previously protected under the common law.



Again, if you want to actually discuss this issue please refrain from this type of dumbassery.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...10426_1_crime-rate-crime-trends-violent-crime

Burglaries are up, if stand and defend was a deterrent, you would think burglaries would have dropped drastically. Law enforcement does not credit stand and deliver for lower crime rates. It seems this nation outcry has highlighted the problems it causes for law enforcement and the increase in needless deaths.

 

[Bonestorm]

Previously they were required to attempt to evade first. Now they are not.

No, they were not.

and yet AGAIN, more stupidity from you. What part of wanting to analyze where the increase came from do you find to be 'dumbassery'??? You love making these proclamations, yet NEVER state what exactly it is that you find so wrong or stupid or offensive. Why is that Dung? You yourself shouted out that they increased three fold did you not? Do you even care WHY they increased?

I was referring to the dumbassery about libruls r stupit.

 

[Damocles]

On what basis does the federal government step in without offending the state law and George Zimmerman's right to act in his own self-defense in accordance with state law? I mean, there's a pretty significant tension (not only with respect to the whole federal v. state government thing) that this case presents for Libertarians. On the one hand, you have a state level determination that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense as codified in state law and then you have the death of Martin, the denial of life to him.

Now, I can see the argument that Libertarians believe in the ability of the federal government to protect rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as against state action, but I don't see any principled Libertarian argument for federal intervention here where (1) the state hasn't denied anything to Martin, a private actor has, and (2) state law protects Zimmerman's right to self-defense, a basic principle of Libertarianism.

(1) I don't know if the State has denied Martin anything at this time, nor do you. But we all have a right to a fair trial, including the victim's family. If the State is denying this right frivolously it is certainly a point where the State can be denying the rights of Martin, and the other victims (Martin's Family).
It's number (2) where you really fail to comprehend. If the young man's rights were violated by Zimmerman, the role of the Federal government would be to do something when and if it is found the State and Local government has failed. The right to life is fundamental, and the young man had a right to defend himself as well.

The assumption of guilt for the young man on your part is interesting.

There absolutely is a belief in the governmental role to protect the individual's rights against aggression.

Now, if it really is self-defense, and it could be I guess, (I have a hard time believing that a 17 year old kid armed with Skittles was a danger to a man who had a gun.) Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

 

[Phantasmal]

(1) I don't know if the State has denied Martin anything at this time, nor do you. But we all have a right to a fair trial, including the victim's family. If the State is denying this right frivolously it is certainly a point where the State can be denying the rights of Martin, and the other victims (Martin's Family).
It's number (2) where you really fail to comprehend. If the young man's rights were violated by Zimmerman, the role of the Federal government would be to do something when and if it is found the State and Local government has failed. The right to life is fundamental, and the young man had a right to defend himself as well.

The assumption of guilt for the young man on your part is interesting.

There absolutely is a belief in the governmental role to protect the individual's rights against aggression.

Now, if it really is self-defense, and it could be I guess, (I have a hard time believing that a 17 year old kid armed with Skittles was a danger to a man who had a gun.) Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

The city council has given the chief of police a no confidence vote. I think they agree that this was not handled properly by local authorities and the chief is stepping aside, temporarily. It also seems that the state did not take notice until the nation outcry. It leads to the assumption that the State was not doing anything about this before the petition by the public.

 

[Bonestorm]

(1) I don't know if the State has denied Martin anything at this time, nor do you. But we all have a right to a fair trial, including the victim's family. If the State is denying this right frivolously it is certainly a point where the State can be denying the rights of Martin, and the other victims (Martin's Family).

Where in the hell does this right come from? I've never heard of it. You're stretching quite a bit here, Damo.

It's number (2) where you really fail to comprehend. If the young man's rights were violated by Zimmerman, the role of the Federal government would be to do something when and if it is found the State and Local government has failed. The right to life is fundamental, and the young man had a right to defend himself as well.

Where does this obligation come from in the law? What "something" should the federal government do and on what legal basis that comports with Libertarianism?

The assumption of guilt for the young man on your part is interesting.

More interesting is your baseless assertion about the assumption of guilt for Trayvan Martin on my part.

There absolutely is a belief in the governmental role to protect the individual's rights against aggression.

No one disputes that, but there are lots of different levels of government and what role the federal government has vis-a-vis the states. I don't think many libertarians would really say that the federal government has an obligation to try a person for murder where the state has investigated the matter and determined that there are no grounds for prosecution. In fact, the feds will have to stretch the law pretty wide to try to find s crime to charge Zimmerman with if they wanted to. It just isn't the case that the federal government has the power to decide if state level prosecutors make a bad decision and get to step in and charge someone for a crime if the state fails to do it.

Now, if it really is self-defense, and it could be I guess, (I have a hard time believing that a 17 year old kid armed with Skittles was a danger to a man who had a gun.) Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

This doesn't really get to the question of whether it was self-defense as defined in the applicable law.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't disagree with you here. The trouble is that the law says that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place that he has a lawful right to be, both of which apply to Zimmerman on the facts as we know them, are entitled to the defense. You are creating an exception to the law that does not exist.

They are NOT entitled to the defense if THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR. He exited the car, despite being told not to by the police, he did so with a loaded weapon. No rationale adult is going to conclude that his was an act of self defense because he feared for his life. Which is why the police accepting the self defense is coming under so much scrutiny and ridicule.

Huh?

Your whole the locals are the state but not the State thing...

Just calling them as I see them. Let's assume the State lets Zimmerman skate, finding that the statute applies to him. Should the federal government get involved according to your libertarian view and, if so, on what specific basis in the law?

No specific basis with the state law, but with anti-discrimination laws they most certainly should investigate. Again, I can't see any rational person accepting the self defense line in this particular case.

 

[Bonestorm]

They are NOT entitled to the defense if THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR. He exited the car, despite being told not to by the police, he did so with a loaded weapon. No rationale adult is going to conclude that his was an act of self defense because he feared for his life. Which is why the police accepting the self defense is coming under so much scrutiny and ridicule.

Where in the law is the exception for aggressors? It isn't in there, SF. That's one of the major flaws with the law. Exiting the car is not unlawful. Carrying a loaded weapon is not unlawful. Unless he was engaged in unlawful activity or had no right to be where he was, he was acting lawfully.

No specific basis with the state law, but with anti-discrimination laws they most certainly should investigate. Again, I can't see any rational person accepting the self defense line in this particular case.

So you're saying Zimmerman was a racist and was acting out of racial animosity? I'm still not sure that there is a criminal case there. Maybe under hate crimes legislation, I guess, but I don't know that there is an actual offense under federal law for hate crimes as opposed to a sentencing enhancement if you commit an underlying federal offense and the prosecution can prove you acted with racial animus.

On the self-defense defense, if it were a normal and rational self-defense law then yes, but this one isn't.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...10426_1_crime-rate-crime-trends-violent-crime

Burglaries are up, if stand and defend was a deterrent, you would think burglaries would have dropped drastically. Law enforcement does not credit stand and deliver for lower crime rates. It seems this nation outcry has highlighted the problems it causes for law enforcement and the increase in needless deaths.

So if burglaries are up, it would stand to reason that might be a reason the 'justifiable homicides' are also up.

I wasn't aware stand and defend was supposed to be a deterrent. I thought it was designed to return power to the victim and not the criminal.

 

[Damocles]

The city council has given the chief of police a no confidence vote. I think they agree that this was not handled properly by local authorities and the chief is stepping aside, temporarily. It also seems that the state did not take notice until the nation outcry. It leads to the assumption that the State was not doing anything about this before the petition by the public.

So far the State government hasn't been necessary. It looks like the local authority took action.

There has been a crapton of assumption in this case. First that the local authorities had concluded all investigation. Saying you aren't arresting him at this time because the CA said they didn't have a case strong enough to overcome the self-defense claim is not the same thing as saying< "all further investigation is ended because he has been exonerated"...

Second that the State itself should step in the first second a CA said they didn't have enough evidence yet.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Where in the law is the exception for aggressors? It isn't in there, SF. That's one of the major flaws with the law. Exiting the car is not unlawful. Carrying a loaded weapon is not unlawful. Unless he was engaged in unlawful activity or had no right to be where he was, he was acting lawfully.

The law clearly states deadly force is allowed for SELF DEFENSE MORON. YOU CANNOT BE THE AGGRESSOR AND ALSO CLAIM SELF DEFENSE.

Again, did the cops tell him to stay in his car? Yes or no?

It isn't hard... you are trying to make excuses for Zimmerman being there so that you can bash the law. As I stated, no rational adult is buying 'self defense' Just you and the local police and DA.

So you're saying Zimmerman was a racist and was acting out of racial animosity? I'm still not sure that there is a criminal case there. Maybe under hate crimes legislation, I guess, but I don't know that there is an actual offense under federal law for hate crimes as opposed to a sentencing enhancement if you commit an underlying federal offense and the prosecution can prove you acted with racial animus.

On the self-defense defense, if it were a normal and rational self-defense law then yes, but this one isn't.

If you wish to discuss the topic, you need to stop the dumbassery. Is Zimmerman the one that is responsible and paid for upholding the law... or would that be the police/DA?

Again... you can say it is not normal and rational... POINT out the section of the law that you feel that way about. Quote it directly. Put it on the board. Then we can discuss why you are wrong.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They got the stats from the DoJ, Fox also gave the same stats, don't like them, then do the research to prove them wrong, it is that simple. All news sources are reporting The same stats.

Even if it was true, there's nothing to point to the idea that they're unjustifiable.
Odd how people stand up for themselves, when allowed to; instead of running away and letting the criminal have his way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just curious... but I wonder why the author didn't tell us anything about those justifiable homicides? Why did they 'skyrocket'?

Was it more justifiable homicides due to cops?
Did the number that were justifiable go up because homeowners didn't have to retreat in their home, whereas before they did?
Was it due to cases like Zimmerman murdering Martin?

Pretty much what I said.
Basically it's odd how people will stand up for themselves, instead of running away and allowing criminals to have their way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

2000 903
2001 874
2002 911
2003 924
2004 946
2005 883
2006 1129
2007 1201
2008 1169
2009 1017
2010 987

The above is total number of murders in Florida by year. I haven't found where they are getting the number, since journalists today rarely source it. But still looking, because I would love to see the numbers in terms of where they are increasing.

Due to cop?
Due to homeowners being better protected?
Or due to vigilantes as suggested?

Funny the authors don't break that down.

Looks to me like it took two years for the criminals to get the idea that they weren't in charge any longer and then began to realize what was up.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

most major news sources gave the same data. The point is that they didn't break down WHERE the justifiable homicides were increasing. It could be police shootings. It could be that homeowners who previously would have been charged are no longer charged due to the law. Or it could be that more cases like Zimmerman murdering Martin are popping up. That breakdown will be far more revealing than the raw overall numbers.

My GUESS would be that it has something to do with homeowners... but if anyone can find the data breakdown, that would be great info to share.

I see it probably more like a form of circle acceptance of a comment.

A reports something
B repeats it and supports A
C then says well since A and B have said it, it must be true and continues the cirlce.
D now chimes in and says "you know I saw something about that" and supports C, who is supporting A and B.
E reports that A, B, C, and D are all saying this and I agree.

A then chimes in and says see, "A, B, C, D, and E all reported what I did and this proves that my report is correct"; therefy completing the circle.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I understand when deadly force is permissible under the law. There was some confusion when Johnny posted a link to a bill that did not become law which said that you could shoot someone for touching you without permission. I thought we cleared that up a long time ago.

I fail to see how this means that Zimmerman is not protected by the law. There is no dispute that the two men got into a physical altercation so I don't know on what basis you can say that there is probable cause to believe that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent great bodily harm to himself.




I have already read it numerous times.




That's just not true. Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity and had a lawful right to be on a public street. There is nothing in the law that says that a person who pursues someone else cannot invoke the protections of the law. And you're just making the part up about Zimmerman starting the fight. Maybe he just confronted Martin and asked him what he was doing and Martin attacked him. Who knows? Unless you have good evidence that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin I don't know how you can claim that he started the fight.




Again, we've been over this.




No, but the state did.




If you go back through my post I doubt you will find me saying that the State has failed, just that the state has failed.





I think this is really funny. I guess this is what you get when Republicans are ashamed to call themselves Republicans and so they call themselves "Libertarians" without any real understanding of what Libertarianism is.

The Courts also consider what a "norma and resonablel" person would do, in the same circumstance(s).
Zimmerman was told to stay in his car.
If Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin felt threatened, then Zimmerman becomes the one who is being aggressive and Martin has the right to defend himself.

Unless Zimmerman can show that Martin was a danger to others; then a normal and reasonable person would have stayed in his car, as told to do so.

Let me ask you a question:
You're standing on your balcony and witness person A shoot person B and then person A begins to walk away.
Are you allowed to shoot person A and if so, under what justification(s)?

 

[Phantasmal]

So far the State government hasn't been necessary. It looks like the local authority took action.

There has been a crapton of assumption in this case. First that the local authorities had concluded all investigation. Saying you aren't arresting him at this time because the CA said they didn't have a case strong enough to overcome the self-defense claim is not the same thing as saying< "all further investigation is ended because he has been exonerated"...

Second that the State itself should step in the first second a CA said they didn't have enough evidence yet.

Again, it is because of public outcry. The locals had 24 days before the Feds stepped in, at which point the state was suddenly interested. The local police are on the hot seat for mishandling this investigation. This investigation was going down as purely a self defense issue until the patents garnered national attention.

 

[Damocles]

Again, it is because of public outcry. The locals had 24 days before the Feds stepped in, at which point the state was suddenly interested. The local police are on the hot seat for mishandling this investigation. This investigation was going down as purely a self defense issue until the patents garnered national attention.

I'm glad they did. I still can't wrap my mind around somebody shooting unarmed children and crying self-defense... And yeah, 17 is still a kid.

 

[Phantasmal]

I'm glad they did. I still can't wrap my mind around somebody shooting unarmed children and crying self-defense... And yeah, 17 is still a kid.

I agree, it breaks my heart and I am so proud of the way the voice of the people have been raised together for justice.

 

[Airstrip One]

Libertarianism is like socialism or capitolism or marxism... they are all a matter of degree, very few are pure capitolists or socialists or marxists, those who are are very scary. So when we use these terms to describe eachother we are speaking in degrees.

Libertarianism is the belife that less government is better. A pure libertarian would stand on the position that almost no government is best bordering on the line of anarchy. I have never heard libertarianism described in terms of acceptable levels of governmental power starting at local then assending to Federal if the locals fail to address the issues.

The only capitolists I know of are the people arguing that DC should have senators and representatives in Congress. The only capitolist laws which I can think of at the top of my head are the National Capitol Act and the 23rd Amendment.