Amend Florida's 'stand your ground' law, says lawyer for Markeis McGlockton's family

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The white guy claimed he was in fear of his life and why would he not be? He was a lone white guy in a black neighborhood known for its crime and violence, had just been violently attacked and had no idea what his black attacker might do next? The police conducted an intensive investigation and concluded the white man was in reasonable fear of his life and justified in using deadly force. End of story.

Funny, according to the store owner, uhh he frequented the store quite often, so either he wasn't scared of being in that neighborhood or somebody's lying. On top of that he was armed, and alledgedly was playing parking lot cop in according to the store owners account and/or knowledge of the guy.

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Try containing yourself if some stranger is going off on your girlfriend or wife while your kids are in the car. Yeah you might get shot over it, but that didn't make the guy any less wrong for starting the situation in which he wasn't ever suited for (needed a gun), and ultimately made him pull that weapon, and then fire that weapon out of fear, rage or whatever the reason was for doing so.

Now an innocent man who just came to the store with his lady and kids to purchase some things (lay dead) because of this un-nessesarily created situation.

It doesn't matter what the guy said to the woman about the handicapped spot..... the only part that matters to the attack is the one who first began the violence, and that was the black guy and the push.

That wasn't an innocent man, he attacked a complete stranger with over the top violence. Again, has anyone seen the background on the attacker....his violence was very natural and I suspect he may have had problems with the actual police.

He had been arrested for assault before this incident.

Why do you consistently make claims with no support for them? Where is your link to that information?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Pardon me, but I think it is about time that people know, if they haven't figured it out for themselves, that you are simply a racist son of a bitch. Why don't you just admit it in a statement without trying to justify your hatred?

My dear describing the nature of a neighborhood is not racism. You have let yourself get emotional for no reason. One should never do that in a debate. It is a sure sign you have lost the debate.

Shut up you racist piece of trash! No one wants to hear your ignorant attacks on people for the color of their skin.

Race runs much deeper than just mere skin color.

I know honorable and intelligent people from India that are much darker than the average negro.

Some people find the fact race is more than skin deep to be novel, when really I think it's more accurate to see races as being different enough that it extends to superficialities.

So different you can tell simply by looking. Yes, the differences dont stop at the skin but you can still tell by visual differentiation. There is no contradiction there, the presence of superficial characteristics which can be used to identify something does not mean the differences are just superficial. I repeat, you can tell by superficial characteristics but they arent the only differences.

Nice attempt to camouflage your racist beliefs!

FAIL!

It demonstrates that your claim of skin color having some significance is bogus. And, the fact I have to explain that to you means you lack the proper skills to decipher what was written.

You are a racist asshole. That is the only thing anyone needs to know. You have proven it numerous times. Your continued racist rants are quite evident to anyone with an IQ above room temp.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Funny, according to the store owner, uhh he frequented the store quite often, so either he wasn't scared of being in that neighborhood or somebody's lying. On top of that he was armed, and alledgedly was playing parking lot cop in according to the store owners account and/or knowledge of the guy.

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Nor did it allow "nerd parking lot cop" to pull his piece out of rage, and then exact vengence on the guy for the push down.

Wrong cat with a gun if it made him some kind of nerd cop who thought the gun made him, instead of him making the gun in which would mean being in control of himself and his weapon in any situation if possible.

Rage....didn't look like rage on the video....looked like he was responding to a violent, surprise attack, where the attacker stepped forward while the man was down..... you can try to pretend this wasn't a justified shooting all you want....but the elements are all there.

There was no longer a threat when he pulled the gun. Had his attacker advanced again, I would not argue one bit that he would be justified in shooting, but the fact remains that the victim was shot with no threat happening.

Nonsense....that is just your opinion and we all know opinions are like arseholes...everyone has one.

Not an opinion. Fact!

You are the only asshole in this conversation, and a racist one at that!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Time to close this thread. It has degenerated into little more than name calling and some that keep repeating thiings that have already been said and answered ad nauseum.

The nausea I feel is caused by conversing with a self-admitted racist.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Funny, according to the store owner, uhh he frequented the store quite often, so either he wasn't scared of being in that neighborhood or somebody's lying. On top of that he was armed, and alledgedly was playing parking lot cop in according to the store owners account and/or knowledge of the guy.

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Try containing yourself if some stranger is going off on your girlfriend or wife while your kids are in the car. Yeah you might get shot over it, but that didn't make the guy any less wrong for starting the situation in which he wasn't ever suited for (needed a gun), and ultimately made him pull that weapon, and then fire that weapon out of fear, rage or whatever the reason was for doing so.

Now an innocent man who just came to the store with his lady and kids to purchase some things (lay dead) because of this un-nessesarily created situation.

It doesn't matter what the guy said to the woman about the handicapped spot..... the only part that matters to the attack is the one who first began the violence, and that was the black guy and the push.

That wasn't an innocent man, he attacked a complete stranger with over the top violence. Again, has anyone seen the background on the attacker....his violence was very natural and I suspect he may have had problems with the actual police.

He had been arrested for assault before this incident.

Why do you consistently make claims with no support for them? Where is your link to that information?

Sir you are not only a liar but a damned liar: McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery.

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

 

[MacTheKnife]

When will stand your ground apply to black people?

Stand your ground only applies to people who are not engaged in criminal activities.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Try containing yourself if some stranger is going off on your girlfriend or wife while your kids are in the car. Yeah you might get shot over it, but that didn't make the guy any less wrong for starting the situation in which he wasn't ever suited for (needed a gun), and ultimately made him pull that weapon, and then fire that weapon out of fear, rage or whatever the reason was for doing so.

Now an innocent man who just came to the store with his lady and kids to purchase some things (lay dead) because of this un-nessesarily created situation.

It doesn't matter what the guy said to the woman about the handicapped spot..... the only part that matters to the attack is the one who first began the violence, and that was the black guy and the push.

That wasn't an innocent man, he attacked a complete stranger with over the top violence. Again, has anyone seen the background on the attacker....his violence was very natural and I suspect he may have had problems with the actual police.

He had been arrested for assault before this incident.

Why do you consistently make claims with no support for them? Where is your link to that information?

Sir you are not only a liar but a damned liar: McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery.

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

You should have included that when you made the claim. Dumbass!

 

[Claudette]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

Yup. Someone breaks into your house you can shoot em dead. That's what stand your ground means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the law assumes that the person defending himself is using deadly force in good faith, and the burden rests with the state to demonstrate otherwise.

Yeah so they can do what they want, lie and say 'I was in fear for my life" when most anyone else might have been pissed about being knocked down and may even want to fight but not be in actual fear for their life yet no one ever even looks at the case to see if what the shooter states matchs the evidence.

I will never forget watching Zimmerman being "coached" by the two detectives who were assigned to take his statement and investigate the shooting. They were telling him where the holes in his story were and how to fill them. There are known scientific tools you can use to analyze the probability of whether a person is telling the truth or not. In so many of these cases it seem likes the authorities don't care whether the suspect's story makes sense.

Dispite whatever knowledge you may think you have you are either attempting to deceive or you do not kinow what you are talking about. George Zimmerman has never been convicted of any crime. He was involved in the community...helped black kids and volunteered to protect his community. Before the incident he supported Obama and was a democrat. I do not know all the details regarding the Judge
Bloom case....but when someone decides to steal something they should be aware the outcome may not be something they want.

Anyhow, it is a poor case you cite to explain the stand your ground law. Lastly--statistics prove that most gun owners are law abiding and honorable members of society.

Most gun owners abide law

You are letting your bias show.

And what bias you do think you're seeing? I didn't cite Blooms case as an example of the stand your ground law, I cited it as an example of how stupid some of the people making life and death and personal freedom decisions for others are. Bloom is a federal judge and she doesn't understand the difference between advancing one's position and standing one's ground. She doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of the definition of self-defense either. You and 2A Guy are attempting to chastise me for pointing out some of the flaws in our system and wanting someone to do something about them. And while I know that most CCW holders are law abiding citizens, most doesn't mean all.

And as far as Zimmerman is concerned he is a depraved individual with a history of violence especially towards women. When he told an interviewer that even knowing now what they didn't know the night of the shooting - that Martin was 17 and unarmed and was where he had permission to be, that he still would have taken the exact same course of action and said it was God's plan that Martin died that night. That's the FL CCW holder you are defending

ALECexposed: George Zimmerman's Criminal History Includes Alleged Violence and Temper (Audio and New Documents)
....
On July 16, 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for felony resisting arrest "with violence" and with "battery" of a law enforcement officer, according to the sworn affidavit filed in the case.

The officer, Paul Fleischman, in the summary of his complaint said that Zimmerman interfered with an arrest of an Orlando bar employee who had been handcuffed and sitting on a curb awaiting transport to county jail. The Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms officer said Zimmerman was "obstructing justice."

Zimmerman's Response to a Police Request to Walk Away: "Fuck You"
When the undercover officer showed Zimmerman his badge and asked him to step away, Zimmerman reportedly said, "I don't care who you are." When the officer asked him again to leave, Zimmerman reportedly said, "Fuck you."

The officer stated that when he "attempted to escort Zimmerman away from the interview area, he shrugged away from me, and then pushed my arms away with his hands. After a short struggle with Zimmerman he was placed in handcuffs and detained" for transportation to jail.

The officer said several law enforcement officers witnessed the fight, and that Zimmerman "refused medical treatment." (Zimmerman was also identified as a white male in the affidavit.) His bond was set at $1,000.

Zimmerman was initially charged with a felony in county court and in the process of plea negotiations the case was transferred to a lower court and he was then charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and pleaded not guilty. Later that year he was accepted into a "pre-trial diversion" program that would allow the charges to be dismissed or not prosecuted ("nolle prosequi").

Zimmerman Given "Special Condition" -- "Anger Management" Classes
The court imposed a "special condition" on Zimmerman: that he complete an "Anger Management" class and write an apology to the officer. (Later, however, when Zimmerman applied to a criminal justice program, he claimed the police officer supposedly never said he was a police officer and that Zimmerman was trying to protect his friend from the officer who had arrested the friend.)

The program also required Zimmerman not to violate any other laws and to be under court supervision for six months for $300 in fees, but he sought an extension to complete its 40 hours of required community service, along with a potential fee of $100 for the extension.

While out on Bond for Assault, More Violence by Zimmerman Alleged
In the meantime, on August 8, 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, petitioned for an order of "protection against domestic violence" by him. At the time, Zuazo was living in Orlando and Zimmerman was living in an apartment in Lake Mary, Florida, after they had stopped living together and broken up.

Zimmerman Hung Out Near Ex's House and Reportedly Insisted on Staying There
According to Zuazo's petition, on her way home that night around 10:30 pm, she spotted Zimmerman's car near her home and called him on the phone to ask why he was there. According to Zuazo, Zimmerman replied that he was "checking on me."

She said he asked if he could come in and talk. She said she agreed they could talk for a "little bit," and he stayed for an hour. When she told Zimmerman he had to go home, she said he "insisted on staying."

Zimmerman "Got Upset" When Asked to Leave, said Ex, and "Pushed" Her
When she told him he could not stay, Zuazo said Zimmerman "got upset" and demanded some photos and papers.

When she said she would find them tomorrow and drop them off, Zuazo said Zimmerman "got more upset." She said he also grabbed her cell phone and tried to leave with it. She said she stood in front of the door and asked for it back.

She said Zimmerman then told her the phone was not hers and then "pushed" her.

She said she told him "not to touch me" and to give it back, and she said it then "became a pushing match." She said she got the cell phone from him and they continued pushing each other as she tried to push him out of the door of her home.

In the midst of this fight, she said her dog jumped up and marred his cheek by biting at it. She said the dog's response to his fighting with her "freaked me out" and she reiterated her demand that he leave.

She said she then ran up the stairs, and locked the door and called 9-1-1 on her phone. She said that as he walked out the door he yelled, "I can't believe you'd do this to me."

When the police came, she says they recommended she file for an injunction to protect herself from him the next day.

She did; on August 9, 2005, Zuazo requested a temporary restraining order.

Ex Alleged Other Acts of Violence by Zimmerman
In her request for an order of protection against Zimmerman, his ex detailed other times she says Zimmerman acted violently and that she had reported them to the Orlando Police Department.

She said there was a previous violent incident when he was upset because she got home late and then he started "sexually groping me." When she objected she said he said he could treat her that way because "I was his woman." She said when she "asked him to leave me alone," he picked her up and threw her on the bed. She said when she got up to leave "he grabbed" her and threw her down again. She admitted she smacked him in response and then he left.

She said that another time he had "smacked my mouth" with an open hand during an argument in the car on their way back from a counseling session. She said she decided to stay at a friend's house that night.

Court Issued Domestic Violence Injunction against Zimmerman
On August 9 of that year, a court granted her restraining order against Zimmerman. That injunction barred him from contacting her or hurting her and from possessing a firearm while the order was in effect.

Zimmerman Responded to Domestic Violence Injunction by Claiming Ex Attacked
The next day, on August 10, Zimmerman filed a petition asking the court to protect him from his ex-girlfriend, Zuazo. In that petition, he acknowledged that she had already sought a restraining order against him. That is, he did not call 9-1-1 as she did immediately following the violent fight and he did not report any claim of violence the following day, as she did. He pursued an order only after a court ordered him to stay away from her. In his petition, he lists the name of his criminal defense attorney in the case involving the violent incident with a law enforcement officer as his counsel.

Zimmerman Claimed He Was just in Ex-Girlfriend's Neighborhood, not Watching
In his petition, Zimmerman claimed that on August 8 he was dropping a friend off when Zuazo called to ask what he was doing on her "side" of town. He says she asked him if he "wanted to spend the night."

In his statement, he says he "proceeded to her house" and watched TV. He said he told her he "was not interested in spending the night" because he had an interview the next morning. He claims his ex accused him of wanting to leave to see another woman or go party.

Zimmerman Blamed Ex-Girlfriend for Starting Fight
According to Zimmerman, "we started arguing and she started to get upset and violent."

He said he told her he "wanted nothing more to do with her" and asked for any belongings that remained at her house. He said she refused and said she would give them to him in the morning, the only point of agreement in their two versions of events.

Zimmerman claims he then said he would not stay the night and would be leaving with what he called his cell phone that she had been using. He said he had allowed her to use it "as insurance" "to receive valuable paperwork that she had in her possession," like loan documents.

He said when he headed to the door to leave Zuazo slapped him and said he was not leaving. He said he told her she was losing control and that she responded by saying, "Fine, f-ing leave then."

However, then he claims she "physically assaulted me about the face and upper chest, at one point trying to choke" him. He said he then gave her the phone.

He said she then threatened to call the police and "put me away forever" based on the pending charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer. He then claimed that he went to a friend's house and "cleaned up the blood, patched my eye, and iced my bruises." He did not seek medical treatment.

When Zimmerman filed his counter-claim against her restraining order, he included a photo of scratches on his cheek he claimed she caused; she had claimed her dog had jumped on him and caused that. The abrasions on his cheek in the photo could have been caused by a dog's teeth or paws or by nails or by a woman's fingernails.

Zimmerman Claimed Ex Was Aggressor and Attacked Him Previously
In his petition, Zimmerman also claimed that previously Zuazo had been upset that he had gone to a concert without her and then hit him in the face and with a baseball bat. He claimed that when he locked her out of the house during that argument, she beat on the door and then vandalized his car with a pair of scissors. There is no indication that he sought medical treatment for the alleged bat attack or called the police that night claiming she was a vandal.

Court Issued Injunction Barring Zimmerman and Ex from Contact
On August 24, a Florida court issued two final judgments on the petitions that enjoined Zimmerman and his ex from contact with each other for a year and barred them both from possessing firearms during the year the injunction was in force.

Criminal Case against Zimmerman Later Dismissed
The domestic violence case appears to have had no effect on Zimmerman's case for battering a law enforcement officer. He ultimately completed the requirements of the criminal diversion program, and in the summer of 2006 the state of Florida dismissed the case under the "nolle prosequi" provision of the program.

These records about violent acts Zimmerman is alleged to have committed took place a few years ago and there appear to have been no other charges against him until he killed Trayvon Martin last year.​

Then express your displeasure with Florida lawmakers; shooting the messenger only makes you look ridiculous.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

Yup. Someone breaks into your house you can shoot em dead. That's what stand your ground means.

Nope. If they run, you can't shoot them.

 

[Claudette]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

Yup. Someone breaks into your house you can shoot em dead. That's what stand your ground means.

Nope. If they run, you can't shoot them.

If they don't run, you can.

 

[beagle9]

He wouldn't have died of a heart attack if he could have breathed!!

He shouldn't have resisted. Period. End of statement.

Did he resist? I don't remember the details. But if he was resisting, was it because he told them he could not breathe? And what about the cop using deadly force that was against policy but he used it anyway???
Gardner should not have died. Manslaughter.

Gardner was a 300+ pound tub of lard. All he had to do was let them put the cuffs on. He refused at which time they took him to the ground. Gardner brought about his own death by stupidity.

I didn't like the Gardner take down at all, and worse the poor feller died as a result of it. Not good.

All he had to do was stop resisting. I can say it a thousand times and you cannot argue with the fact that it is true.

It is true, but we have to remain focused on the entire episode/the big picture in order to come to the ultimate conclusion of what caused the man's death, and then ask ourselves as in this case being reviewed, was his activity a reason to take a man down in that way, and ultimately restrain him in that way, and do it for his activity in which ultimately caused his death in result of ???

 

[beagle9]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

Yup. Someone breaks into your house you can shoot em dead. That's what stand your ground means.

Nope. If they run, you can't shoot them.

Not even in the leg ??? Just let him get away to maybe come back and kill you and your family because you ID'd them ????

 

[Gracie]

He shouldn't have resisted. Period. End of statement.

Did he resist? I don't remember the details. But if he was resisting, was it because he told them he could not breathe? And what about the cop using deadly force that was against policy but he used it anyway???
Gardner should not have died. Manslaughter.

Gardner was a 300+ pound tub of lard. All he had to do was let them put the cuffs on. He refused at which time they took him to the ground. Gardner brought about his own death by stupidity.

I didn't like the Gardner take down at all, and worse the poor feller died as a result of it. Not good.

All he had to do was stop resisting. I can say it a thousand times and you cannot argue with the fact that it is true.

It is true, but we have to remain focused on the entire episode/the big picture in order to come to the ultimate conclusion of what caused the man's death, and then ask ourselves as in this case being reviewed, was his activity a reason to take a man down in that way, and ultimately restrain him in that way, and do it for his activity in which ultimately caused his death in result of ???

He was selling cigs. On a corner. Saw a fight break out between other people and called the cops thinking he was helping.

 

[beagle9]

Did he resist? I don't remember the details. But if he was resisting, was it because he told them he could not breathe? And what about the cop using deadly force that was against policy but he used it anyway???
Gardner should not have died. Manslaughter.

Gardner was a 300+ pound tub of lard. All he had to do was let them put the cuffs on. He refused at which time they took him to the ground. Gardner brought about his own death by stupidity.

I didn't like the Gardner take down at all, and worse the poor feller died as a result of it. Not good.

All he had to do was stop resisting. I can say it a thousand times and you cannot argue with the fact that it is true.

It is true, but we have to remain focused on the entire episode/the big picture in order to come to the ultimate conclusion of what caused the man's death, and then ask ourselves as in this case being reviewed, was his activity a reason to take a man down in that way, and ultimately restrain him in that way, and do it for his activity in which ultimately caused his death in result of ???

He was selling cigs. On a corner. Saw a fight break out between other people and called the cops thinking he was helping.

Thought a store owner called the law on him ??

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Here is the Florida law on stalking:




Stalking
Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2012)

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

(9)

(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

Florida law on stalking.

You are lying about Zimmerman he never made the comment you claim he made i.e. regarding ' -ucking coons'. This lilnk proves you lie: CNN Walks It Back: Oops, Zimmerman Didn't Say 'Coon,' He Said It Was 'Cold'!

Also the FBI did a complete investigation of Zimmerman's alleged racism and issued a formal statement saying that Zimmerman was not a racist. Though they would have dearly loved to discover he was a racist..to please obama and eric holder.

An outrageous lie on your part obviously meant to deceive.

Then you further attempt to distort what actually happened in the Trayvon incident by trying to play woulda coulda shoulda. If you had watched the trial you should know the evidence contradicts what you claim. Here is another News Flash for you ....the Stand your ground law was not used by the Zimmerman defense team. It was a simple case of Self Defense....thus you are wrong on all counts and should apologize to the board. Next time before commenting on the Trayvon incident study up and get the actual facts of the case.

Did you know "stand your ground" was not used by the Zimmerman defense?

Wow, that's a lot of material to cover but I'll try to make short work of it. First off I'm doing this mostly from memory so I might not get all of the details exactly right but the pertinant facts I generally will verify again. Also I just want to state that you and I are not going to agree on this however that doesn't make me a liar. I have no reason to lie about anything, particularly in a case that I'm not involved in and that has already been adjudicated.

Zimmerman initially sought immunity from prosecution under the stand your ground statute. Remember, they did not arrest or charge him with a crime initially

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-- (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer​

The link below contains one of the 911 calls Zimmerman made. I didn't hear his "fucking coons" reference at first either, and was wondering why someone would claim that it was on the tape if it wasn't, so I magnified the audio and listened to it several more times and verified that Zimmerman actually uttered these words. The link also discusses the use of force continuum:
The right's darling, George Zimmerman, is at it again

Florida Stalking Statute inter alia

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose (Martin was not engaged in any illegal activity nor was Zimmerman licensed or authorized to do anything about it even if he was, other than to call the police and report it. He was following an underaged individual who was not engaged in unlaw criminal activity)

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.​

If you have a link to the FBI's determine that Zimmerman is not a racist, I'd like to see it. It's not completely unheard of for a suspect to lie to the police. But the Sanford Police Detectives were kind enough to point out the holes in Georgie's story and explain how he needed to fill them. Nothing unethical about that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Sir you are not only a liar but a damned liar: McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery.

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

Why'd you leave out the part about the aggravated battery charges being dropped and why no mention of Drejka's prior run in with the law in which he is accused to previously pulling a gun on someone in a road rage incident?

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges. McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.
​

I checked both of them and neither was under the supervision of any Florida courts at the time of the shooting.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did he resist? I don't remember the details. But if he was resisting, was it because he told them he could not breathe? And what about the cop using deadly force that was against policy but he used it anyway???
Gardner should not have died. Manslaughter.

Gardner was a 300+ pound tub of lard. All he had to do was let them put the cuffs on. He refused at which time they took him to the ground. Gardner brought about his own death by stupidity.

I didn't like the Gardner take down at all, and worse the poor feller died as a result of it. Not good.

All he had to do was stop resisting. I can say it a thousand times and you cannot argue with the fact that it is true.

It is true, but we have to remain focused on the entire episode/the big picture in order to come to the ultimate conclusion of what caused the man's death, and then ask ourselves as in this case being reviewed, was his activity a reason to take a man down in that way, and ultimately restrain him in that way, and do it for his activity in which ultimately caused his death in result of ???

He was selling cigs. On a corner. Saw a fight break out between other people and called the cops thinking he was helping.

He was selling untaxed cigarettes which was his claim to fame. That is why he was being arrested.

 

[EGR one]

Time to close this thread. It has degenerated into little more than name calling and some that keep repeating thiings that have already been said and answered ad nauseum.

Everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it.

 

[EGR one]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

Yup. Someone breaks into your house you can shoot em dead. That's what stand your ground means.

Common self defense laws require a victim of an attack to attempt to retreat to a safe place, if that is possible. Stand your ground law removes the need to retreat, even if retreat is possible. The victim was on the ground and retreat was not possible. Consequently, there was no need for stand your ground protection.