I demand justice for Daniel AdkinsJr

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
dxdx said:
You say someone's feelings are wrong because of witnesses... In the taco bell case this thread is about, there were witnesses who said the victim was unarmed. The shooter was in a car and had the capability to get away if he felt threatened. He was not in any danger, he committed murder.
.
Click to expand...

There's a witness who said Daniel swung at the car and an eye witness sitting in the seat next to the shooter.

Lets not forget the dog who could've been trying to protect its owner

Are we missing the point that by law you don't have to retreat? Yes he killed someone (so did Zimmerman) but the question is did he break any laws by doing so?

I'm just playing devils advocate. Don't go overboard like mygiant for pointing out the potential court argument
 
ballinouttacntrol said:
There's a witness who said Daniel swung at the car and an eye witness sitting in the seat next to the shooter.

Lets not forget the dog who could've been trying to protect its owner

Are we missing the point that by law you don't have to retreat? Yes he killed someone (so did Zimmerman) but the question is did he break any laws by doing so?

I'm just playing devils advocate. Don't go overboard like mygiant for pointing out the potential court argument
Click to expand...



Exactly. Eyewitnesses are notably unreliable and if he can convince the jury he thought there was a weapon and the threat of bodily arm he can walk too. Doesn't make it right in either case no matter how many Wyatt Earp testimonials to the contrary.
 
ballinouttacntrol said:
There's a witness who said Daniel swung at the car and an eye witness sitting in the seat next to the shooter.

Lets not forget the dog who could've been trying to protect its owner

Are we missing the point that by law you don't have to retreat? Yes he killed someone (so did Zimmerman) but the question is did he break any laws by doing so?

I'm just playing devils advocate. Don't go overboard like mygiant for pointing out the potential court argument
Click to expand...

Ultimately there's just too many unknown details. I didn't read the transcript of the witness statements. Did he swing at the car violently? Was he just swinging his arm like 'hey, f you' type of situation. Context is important.

And from what I remember, the witness in the seat next to him was facebooking on her phone when it happened.

Can you protect your car with deadly force if he swung at the car? Even if he swung with his fist?

I don't have issue with the castle doctrine, if somebody comes into my home I'll take them out, but a car? I don't know the laws well enough but that seems to go against common sense. Is it law that you don't have to retreat from someone shaking their fist at your car?

I appreciate the devils advocate role, and having a civilized conversation about it.
 
dxdx said:
I don't have issue with the castle doctrine, if somebody comes into my home. Is it law that you don't have to retreat from someone shaking their fist at your car?

I appreciate the devils advocate role, and having a civilized conversation about it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about New Jersey but it is in Florida. At one time you had to remove yourself from a confrontation if possible but that was changed to the "Stand Your Ground" law.
 
Lol, no prob

None of us truly know the details, only what's been said or likely to be said in court

No bat was found at the scene and I have no idea how far away the taco bell employee was (or if witness tempering happen) etc etc

Yes various states have the castle doctrine that includes your home, work and vehicle. Arizona includes your vehicle and allows deadly force
 
dxdx said:
I don't have issue with the castle doctrine, if somebody comes into my home I'll take them out, but a car? I don't know the laws well enough but that seems to go against common sense. Is it law that you don't have to retreat from someone shaking their fist at your car?
Click to expand...
SYG laws indicate that there is no duty to retreat if you have a legal reason to be there.
 
dragonfish said:
The jury verdict was correct in as much that they followed the law. The fact that the law allows you to instigate a situation and then claim self defense is where the issue lies.

The two cases have a similarity in that both are claiming to be in fear for their lives, difficult to prove otherwise, how do you say someones feelings are wrong.

There is much a case fore racism in these cases. A part white male killed an unarmed black male and people say self defense. In the other a black man kills an unarmed white man and everyone wants justice.

It's interesting to watch the interplay between the three groups. Those that think the shooter is guilty no matter what, those that realize the laws are what are flawed and need to be changed and the want to be gunslingers who want to go back to Dodge City and the OK Corral.
Click to expand...

Who instigated the situation in the Martin case isn't clear according to the evidence and testimony.

Fear for one's life isn't justification, a reasonable belief that someone is going to severely injure or kill you if their actions continue is justification. You say someone's belief is wrong using the "reasonable person" test and the evidence and witness testimony. The shooter in this case stated that he didn't believe his life was in danger, according to the story and the evidence and witness statement shown so far don't appear to support a claim of self defense.

In one case all the evidence demonstrated that the shooter was beaten while on the ground and may have had reasonable justification in shooting the other man. In the other case the statements and evidence that we have seen show a man with no legal justification shooting another man. It's likely that for some race plays a part in their opinion but if nobody knew the races of the men involved, many of the opinions would be the same.

You left out the fourth group that believes the laws are fine how they are but the evidence and testimony didn't prove Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. We're waiting to see more evidence and testimony on this case but likely never will because there is no major public outcry regarding this case.

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom