Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[HomerJS]

The guys who wrote the law are idiots who missed the glaring loopholes that it created. Do you really think that they can say with authority what it means when they missed these loopholes in originally drafting it?

In an interview the lawmakers said the law does not provide protection for people who persue.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Their comments were made on what we know to date.

Exactly, they don't have access to the real evidence and testimony, only the speculation being put forth by the media.

 

[waggy]

In an interview the lawmakers said the law does not provide protection for people who persue.

but the issue is that is NOT in the law itself. someone posted it once.

 

[HomerJS]

as I said, the guys who passed the law were idiots who didn't fully contemplate the full consequences of it. So I'm not really going to believe them when they say that it doesn't apply, since they've already shown themselves to be idiots.

So your argument is you are fine with allowing Z to remain free because a law created by idoits protects him??

I'm leave it for others to interpret details of the law but the lawmaker said "stand your ground" does not give you the right to persue.

 

[micrometers]

In an interview the lawmakers said the law does not provide protection for people who persue.

dude, we already had this discussion a few pages back.

It doesn't address people who pursue. That is what is known as a loophole.

 

[micrometers]

So your argument is you are fine with allowing Z to remain free because a law created by idoits protects him??

I'm leave it for others to interpret details of the law but the lawmaker said "stand your ground" does not give you the right to persue.

I said many times he should be arrested and tried.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In an interview the lawmakers said the law does not provide protection for people who persue.

Why did they provide protection for aggressors?

[SIZE=-1]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.

[/SIZE]

 

[CLite]

dude, we already had this discussion a few pages back.

It doesn't address people who pursue. That is what is known as a loophole.

That isn't the loophole, the fundamental loophole is letting the person's feeling and fears enter into the determination of their innocence.

The shooter in the below case should have been judged just like any other murderer. I don't give a fuck if he thought his son was in peril, he killed a completely innocent man. Likewise I really don't care what Zimmerman's mental state of fear was, he engaged in an encounter that lead to a wrestling and punching fight, he should have no legal free-standing to kill someone because of his feelings of fear for his life.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.

Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.

The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.

The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.

Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.

The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.

 

[micrometers]

That isn't the loophole, the fundamental loophole is letting the person's feeling and fears enter into the determination of their innocence.

The shooter in the below case should have been judged just like any other murderer. I don't give a fuck if he thought his son was in peril, he killed a completely innocent man. Likewise I really don't care what Zimmerman's mental state of fear was, he engaged in an encounter that lead to a wrestling and punching fight, he should have no legal free-standing to kill someone because of his feelings of fear for his life.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

yeah, ur right.

found a good analysis on reedit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/r2ezn/go_get_skittles_for_your_brother_end_up_dead_the/

 

[airdata]

as I said, the guys who passed the law were idiots who didn't fully contemplate the full consequences of it. So I'm not really going to believe them when they say that it doesn't apply, since they've already shown themselves to be idiots.

You're one of the people standing behind the law and the bullshit self defense story... and yet you don't put any value in the thoughts of the people who made the law to begin with...

Guess that's about par for your average P&N knucklehead.

 

[pauldun170]

Probably not, as you would have to be able to create a situation in which the physical evidence aligns to your story that the group attacked you.

It would be too hard to fabricate that much physical evidence, or construct the fights in such a way as to ensure the physical evidence aligns with your story.

Easy...
Just need to say something about Zombies. If that doesn't work just need to drop "Illegals" or "bankers" into the conversation.

I'd have 82.4219383% of public opinion on my side then.

 

[waggy]

yeah, ur right.

found a good analysis on reedit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/r2ezn/go_get_skittles_for_your_brother_end_up_dead_the/

hmm interesting and according to that Florida Statute § 776.041 puts Z in jail or get him off LOL

 

[micrometers]

You're one of the people standing behind the law and the bullshit self defense story... and yet you don't put any value in the thoughts of the people who made the law to begin with...

Guess that's about par for your average P&N knucklehead.

I've always said it was bad law.

rest is speculation of known facts.

 

[werepossum]

That isn't the loophole, the fundamental loophole is letting the person's feeling and fears enter into the determination of their innocence.

The shooter in the below case should have been judged just like any other murderer. I don't give a fuck if he thought his son was in peril, he killed a completely innocent man. Likewise I really don't care what Zimmerman's mental state of fear was, he engaged in an encounter that lead to a wrestling and punching fight, he should have no legal free-standing to kill someone because of his feelings of fear for his life.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

I dunno, if there's a guy in my backyard wearing a mask and carrying a 14" club I'm assuming he's there to harm me and mine. I hope I wouldn't automatically shoot because there might be some other explanation, but if were my child threatened rather than myself - well, I can understand it at the least.

In my opinion there are far too many people shot who don't need to be, including by the police. If I pull a gun I am prepared to use it, but I don't think pulling a gun automatically means you shoot. The vast majority of people will probably flee when faced with an armed and determined opponent, and those who do not . . . At least you'll know you had to shoot and not wonder if you killed someone unnecessarily.

 

[pauldun170]

I was continuing the discussion where a group of people watched Pauldun170 start a fight with someone, that someone got the upper hand in the fight, and Pauldun170 shot him claiming self defense.

His self defense plea would not work due to him starting the fight. In order for him to lie and say he did not start it, he would need no witnesses who saw him start it.

Pauldun170 then said he would start fights with each witness and kill them, claiming self defense for each, and go home free. That is what I responded it....his hypothetical situation.

If a group of people watched the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin...this thread would not exist.

 

[pauldun170]

fwiw - Trayvon Martin: New details in George Zimmerman domestic violence petitions

Divorce sucks.
People make a lot of accusations and what gets filed isn't necessarily the truth.
Knowing a few folks who have gone through messy divorces, I have to take that info in the link with a grain of salt.

 

[cybrsage]

...

 

[airdata]

I've always said it was bad law.
rest is speculation of known facts.

Speculation isn't even important.

We have the killer. We have the murder weapon. We have the phone records showing the victim on the phone. We have the person the victim was talking to that he was being followed by the killer. We have the 911 tapes in which the killer is told not to pursue and yet he still pursues.

So what you have is a persons death. You already have the person responsible for the death..

Now, how did the death come about? Was it an accident? no.. so, it wasn't manslaughter.

Was it self defense? No. The killer was told to wait for police and he chose instead to go about with his business and kill the kid.

Really, all of the details are meaningless beyond that.

He was told not to pursue the kid and yet he did anyhow. The burden of proof isn't on everybody else. He murdered a child.


It's really an open & shut case. He's clearly responsible for the childs death. He was told not to pursue the child and disobeyed those commands, and therefore his BS self defense claim is meaningless.

 

[waggy]

Divorce sucks.
People make a lot of accusations and what gets filed isn't necessarily the truth.
Knowing a few folks who have gone through messy divorces, I have to take that info in the link with a grain of salt.

yeah im not going to believe anything in that.

 

[cybrsage]

Was it self defense? No. The killer was told to wait for police and he chose instead to go about with his business and kill the kid.

Someone with no authority telling him to do something is irrelevant.

 

[micrometers]

Okay, I was wrong. The law does sort of address Z's situation.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

So protection is not available to Z since he

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

however, Z will argue that

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.

And Z will argue that T had him beaten and Z was screaming on the ground which is a way of signaling surrender.

 

[pauldun170]

yeah im not going to believe anything in that.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the info is false and\or irrelevant.
I just cant bring my self to use that info as evidence of Zimmerman's character.

 

[waggy]

Okay, I was wrong. The law does sort of address Z's situation.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

So protection is not available to Z since he

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

however, Z will argue that

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.

And Z will argue that T had him beaten and Z was screaming on the ground which is a way of signaling surrender.

it could go either way. witch again he should have been arrested and let the courts decide.

 

[waggy]

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the info is false and\or irrelevant.
I just cant bring my self to use that info as evidence of Zimmerman's character.

after going through a rough divorce myself i can't either.

 

[micrometers]

straight from the horse's mouth

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/2...-answer-questions-about-teens-shooting-death/

EVERYONE READ THIS