Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5860565" data-attributes="member: 8835">Not to dredge up this whole thread, but I read a few articles on this incident.Your phrasing shows a distinct bias and assumption about Zimmerman.Zimmerman's lawyer says he has wounds to his face and head, that he got them from the confrontation with the boy.Generally, a man with a gun does not get touched by a boy with a bag of snacks.One thing I don't mention with my crazy proposal is that I fully expect an investigation after any kind of incident.  I think they call that a Grand Jury.  that is what SHOULD be going on in this case.Technically speaking, this is the logical flaw with interpretting Florida's "stand your ground" law.  Pre-confrontation, neither participant was committing a crime.  Therefore, technically both were standing their ground when their paths intersected.  The winner of the case should be the dead man, because the other person misjudged the situation and caused the escalation.  Causing an escalation against an innocent should be a crime.there was apparently a similar case in Florida over a boy in a car, who suddenly got surrounded by armed men who were private security.  He took off, they shot him.  From my perspective,he was defending himself from an attack by unrecognized armed forces.  The guards escalated, the boy is dead, they lose.In the Texas Horn case, 2 bad guys were leaving a house WITH LOOT.  They were obviously guilty and in process of a direct and obvious crime.  Shooting someone in the act of a direct and obvious crime is not vigilanteism.Furthermore, what always gets forgotten in these cases, is the lawyers.  After EVERY criminal incident, there should be a civil suit.  OJ may have dodged the criminal case, but he lost the civil suit because the requirements for a jury decision are lighter.  At that point, the attack strategy is to make the other person suffer financially and socially by dragging them throught he court system until they lose their job, home, and their community shuns them for the jerkhole they are because of all the negative publicity from the case.This is the corollary to "you get to search and shoot bad guys" you also must suffer harsh consequences for making the wrong call.</blockquote>

Verification