Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trayvon Martin is technically and legally the victim. The fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin is not debatable, it is fact.
What is being decided is whether he had the right using the stand your ground defense. The evidence is there, the injuries George claims were caused by Trayvon were not even serious enough to see a Doctor, his wife treated them. That is not life threatening.
Being afraid of someone, yet going after them negates the "fear for your life" since George persued Trayvon on foot. George could have driven off...He could have waited in his truck. He instigated this whole situation start to finish.
Trayvon was a minor...George is an adult.
If George had perpetrated any other act of violence on Trayvon, George would be facing criminal charges. But, Because George shot Trayvon, he has a prayer if he can prove he had just cause.....non-life threatening injuries isn't just cause.
And, we only have George's word on how and what happened when George confronted Trayvon...Something he obviously had no right to do...Since George wasn't on duty volunteering....He wasn't representing the HOA in any capacity...And, The HOA had already made it clear that George could not carry his weapon when he was acting in the capacity as a volunteer. He was acting as a private citizen, carrying a gun, confronting someone in their own area. ..We can debate and argue points all day...inevitably the court will decide, unless George takes a plea.
And, we only have George's word on how and what happened when George confronted Trayvon...Something he obviously had no right to do...Since George wasn't on duty volunteering....He wasn't representing the HOA in any capacity...And, The HOA had already made it clear that George could not carry his weapon when he was acting in the capacity as a volunteer. He was acting as a private citizen, carrying a gun, confronting someone in their own area. ..We can debate and argue points all day...inevitably the court will decide, unless George takes a plea.
Is there some Florida law I do not know about that makes one private citizen confronting another illegal?
Why should Zimmerman have our sympathy? He had a gun and he targeted a child who was doing nothing more than minding his own business. Then he murdered this child in cold blood. Lied to the court about $200k. Yep, he's a real gem.
Your "hero" is a disgusting piece of racist vigilante trash.
Its hard to argue with someone whi knows everything: tm was a 17 years old child, and gz was a racist lol case closed. Lol
Heaven help us all if they take away the equalizer that provides defense against hoodlums by those that are innocent of anything but the pursuit of happiness.
Oh, heaven spares us from the NRA pimping manufacture of hysteria and redherrings!
When the elements of the gun culture stop feeding the rabid paranoia of overwrought white folks who have about a snowballs chance in hell of being confronted by an unknown violent assailant we then might be able to have a rational discussion about self-defense, rational gun gun control, and the freedom to exercise one's 2nd Amendment Rights (yes, I am a gun owner, a concealed weapons permit holder, a liberal and a believer of the individuals right to keep and bear arms).
Quote:
I must admit I have looked at several pics of this kid. I generally am a good judge of character just looking at someone if provided several photos. I must admit this kid falls short of looking menacing. Would like to know his history so maybe we will get some of that at trial
What you and others fail to understand is that Trayvon Martin could have looked like Charles Manson out on bail and had the previous arrest record Ted Bundy, and you it still wouldn't have the right to engage that person in a confrontational manner and expect protection under Florida statute 776.041 for using deadly force, especially if Trayvon Manson-Bundy Martin was lawfully minding his own business and being present in a place where they lawfully had a right to be.
I'm not feeling why this is a concept that appears too difficult to grasp.
Is there some Florida law I do not know about that makes one private citizen confronting another illegal?
There is nothing under Florida law that makes confronting another illegal, which isn't the point. What is illegal under Florida law is that if your confrontational actions result in provoking another to act on that provocation, even if their actions are forceful and unlawful, YOU do not have the right to use deadly force unless you have done everything possible to extract yourself from the confrontation of your initiation.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POST THE RELEVANT STATUTE?
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
There is nothing under Florida law that makes confronting another illegal, which isn't the point. What is illegal under Florida law is that if your confrontational actions result in provoking another to act on that provocation, even if their actions are forceful and unlawful, YOU do not have the right to use deadly force unless you have done everything possible to extract yourself from the confrontation of your initiation.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POST THE RELEVANT STATUTE?
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Is following even confronting someone equal to us of force?
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
Kind of hard to flee when someone is straddling you. Would you not agree?
Paul Valone:
Quote:
Zimmerman’s grand jury will convene on April 10. If he attacked Martin, he’ll stand trial and SYG likely won’t apply. But if Zimmerman withdrew toward his SUV before being punched and having his head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk, as witnesses largely corroborate,14, 15 the law worked as intended.
Of course, Corey circumvented the grand jury knowing there was no substantial evidence to get an indictment.
Is following even confronting someone equal to us of force?
Assuming the question, if it had been properly phrased, is "does following a person justify the use of force"? that would depend on the reasonable or unreasonableness of the person use of force, doesn't it? If you perceive that a person following you causes you to have a "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm, yes the use of force would be justified. For example, if a teenage girl was being followed by a man first in a car, then on foot turned around a used non-deadly force on her pursuer, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet under the law, we could construct a number of reasonable scenarios where a teenage boy being pursued by an adult male (see Sandusky) could argue that they had reasonable fear for their person which resulted in their use of non-deadly force to stop the pursuit. Personally, if I were on a grand jury and was charged with determining if a man had the right to punch the crap out of another man stalking him, and that is precisely what Zimmerman was doing, I would be exceedingly hesitate to vote for an indictment of assault and battery especially when the accused was given some flippant answer by the pursuer as to the reason for their pursuit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great video
