Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you stupid? Seriously if you think hearing the situation as it happen is hearsay you are either illiterate or a hack whose taken a side and found that he was wrong and is now defending a potential murdered because he is too afraid to admit he was wrongUm. YOU obviously CAN'T read. Go back, find the bolded words, and get someone to tell you what they mean, shitstain.
But go on believing that all of the evidence is wrong, EXCEPT what supports what you want to believe. Go on believing that you KNOW Zimmerman is a racist . . . with no evidence to support it. Go on believing Zimmerman "chased him down" . . . with no evidence to support it. Go on believing that every piece of evidence that contradicts what you want to believe is crap, but that "chick's" hearsay is gospel goddamn truth.
I won't even bother to ask you where the proof is of the content of that conversation, because asking for proof is something I do with REAL posters, and you're just a pathetic little dribble of comedy relief for everyone to mock. You might as well put on a jester costume and hit yourself in the face with pies.
Except there is no evidence that shows Zimmerman is innocent. Its hard to believe in something that isnt' really unless of course you're Cecilie.
I'm pretty sure that being on a phone and hearing the whole thing happen as it occurred isn't hearsay but then again I know what hearsay means.
In the world of Starcrap, where the ONLY evidence in this case is the hearsay of a woman who claims to be Trayvon's girlfriend (Yeah, no motivation to lie THERE), then no, there's no evidence that Zimmerman is innocent.
In the world of REAL human beings with functioning brains, there's ALL KINDS of evidence that Zimmerman is innocent, which would be why the State Attorney's office declined to charge him until liberal idiots who are only marginally more intelligent than Starcrap - because, after all, my dog's turds are smarter than Starcrap - whipped up a racial witch hunt.
You know what hearsay means, do you? Then why don't you explain to us how Martin's girlfriend's testimony doesn't qualify as hearsay? I could use a good laugh, and I really don't want you posting any pictures of yourself naked, so we'll go with another lame-ass attempt to explain why you're not a drooling mouthbreather.
Lay it on us.
Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing. If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.
No. It isn't.
Neither was Zimmerman, does that make him innocent too?
So following someone and then running after them with a gun after being told by the cops and the end result is a dead person isn't wrong. Seriously? Seriously?
Did he do that? Do you have any evidence of that?
I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack
Except his bloody head wounds and facial injuries.
And the winesses who said they saw Trayvon hitting him.
Other than that, nothing.
Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!
I actually have no trouble believing that a stupid bitch like you knows people who give themselves closed fractures of the nose while shaving. Idiots tend to stick together in herds, so I'm told.
Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.
No. It isn't.
Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Who says he didn't? And his story was NOT consistent with the evidence, as the chief detective concluded when filed an affidavit for an arrest. Bottom line: the local cops were incompetent in their reaction and initial investigation. Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html
What an incredibly stupid shithead you are, Tachiliberal. In the same breath that you accuse the police of incompetence, you appeal to their judgement that Zimmerman should have been charged/arrested.
Nevermind that the Chief Detective in the case never said Zimmerman should be charged with anything.
It's truly sad when dimwitted little sheet wearers like Ariux try their hand at debating a subject based on the facts, and instead rely on their biased myopia to discern all information.
Case in point: Ariux confuses the Chief of Police with the Chief of Detectives....the chief of Detectives who was in charge of the case was the one who filed an affidavit for arrest.
Compounding his ignorance, Ariux then asserts that if you criticize the police for not doing a proper job of securing the crime scene, then you cannot point out that the chief detective determined their was grounds for an arrest based on his interview with Zimmerman.
Someone needs to educate our dear pointy hooded Ariux that many a criminal case has been lost because the foresnics were botched, or someone wasn't Mirandized properly. Zimmerman may NOT even get to trial if a judge goes for the Stand Your Ground defense. But if he does, the case may again fall apart due to poor police work, as the NY Times article I cited shows.
The discussion on this thread however, is about what evidence is available and how that relates to the credibility of Zimmerman's claims of self defense. To date, Zimmerman's story just doesn't play well, as the damning 911 dispatch call record shows. This combined with Zimmerman's own personal police run-ins and other information does not bode well as to his mindset and actions on that night.
I refer to jokers like Ariux as "Zimmerman Zombies" because their brains effectively go dead the second facts and logic contradict their beliefs. And as the chronology of the posts shows, Ariux is indeed dead from the neck up on this issue.
If your scenario is true, and if Martin felt Zimmerman was a threat, yes, under SYG, Martin would be justified in doing so.There really is no evidence, much less "proof," that Zimmerman "ran."
But, let's not quibble.
Let's pretend that the proof is there.
Ok.
So, in following a guy he found suspicious who was getting away -- after the neighborhood watch guy had called the police about him -- Zimmerman chose to "run."
And?
In your twisted little mind, does this justify Martin turning around on Zimmerman and attacking him (if Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first)?
I'm pretty sure you aren't going to try to claim that there's ANY evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin before Martin struck Zimmerman. Are you?
Did you realize that being followed (even by a guy who is "running") is NOT a crime and does not constitute an "attack?"
Wrong. He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself. But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and reasonably consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.
The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are:andThe 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that persons will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a persons dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Dwelling means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) Vehicle means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances. It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges. There are no charges. He's dead. The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.
To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.
But even if the statute were applicable to him , before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary. That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . . against the others imminent use of unlawful force." And he would have no duty to retreat IF but ONLY IF he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him.
Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were. SO nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun. Nobody can say, for instance, tha the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used. Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death. Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.
So following someone and then running after them with a gun after being told by the cops and the end result is a dead person isn't wrong. Seriously? Seriously?
Did he do that? Do you have any evidence of that?
Yea the fucking recording and phone call. Of which has been mention 100 times so either you are too lazy to read or you are choosing to ignore evidence.
No. It isn't.
Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
He was following him. That is enough of a confrontation. Trayvon walking in the other direction would be retreating, something he no longer has a duty to do under this law.No. It isn't.
Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
If your scenario is true, and if Martin felt Zimmerman was a threat, yes, under SYG, Martin would be justified in doing so.
Wrong. He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself. But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and reasonably consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.
The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are: and
And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances. It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges. There are no charges. He's dead. The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.
To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.
But even if the statute were applicable to him , before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary. That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . . against the others imminent use of unlawful force." And he would have no duty to retreat IF but ONLY IF he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him.
Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were. SO nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun. Nobody can say, for instance, tha the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used. Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death. Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.
If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.
That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.
Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
Jesus plz stop making shit up. You have 0 evidence that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman infact you have a phone call that shows that Trayvon was trying to run away but couldnt
Come back and join the discussion when youve actually reads something about it.
He was following him. That is enough of a confrontation. Trayvon walking in the other direction would be retreating, something he no longer has a duty to do under this law.Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
infact you have a phone call that shows that Trayvon was trying to run away but couldntTrayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
Jesus plz stop making shit up. You have 0 evidence that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman infact you have a phone call that shows that Trayvon was trying to run away but couldnt
Come back and join the discussion when youve actually reads something about it.
Bullshit... STFU dummy.
Again you have 0 evidence that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Why the hell do you keep making shit up? This is potential murder not some fucking political gameHe was following him. That is enough of a confrontation. Trayvon walking in the other direction would be retreating, something he no longer has a duty to do under this law.Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
"Retreating" until he decided to confront Zimmerman?
He could have kept walking... Zimmerman did not stop him from continuing to go home.
Its a tragedy that he didnt make it home, but he also didn't need to confront Zimmerman and beat the fuck out of him.
So Zimmerman following a random kid because said kid was walking and then runs after said kid means Zimmerman defended himself . ROTLF Seriously if you stalk someone and then run up to them its not defenseWrong. He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself. But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and reasonably consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.
The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are: and
And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances. It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges. There are no charges. He's dead. The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.
To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.
But even if the statute were applicable to him , before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary. That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . . against the others imminent use of unlawful force." And he would have no duty to retreat IF but ONLY IF he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him.
Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were. SO nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun. Nobody can say, for instance, tha the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used. Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death. Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.
If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.
That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.
Are you going to stand there and let said "stalker" walk up to ya?
Or are you going to confront said "stalker" and beat the shit out of said "stalker"?
Stand your ground is intended for someone with NO other way out but to stand up for yourself or get your ass whipped or worse.
"in a nutshell" wont cut it in court.
That is incorrect. You really should read up on different cases it has been applied to. Recently a man got off under SYG for killing someone that stole some radios from his car. He chased him down and killed him, while the burglar was running away. The man was under no danger whatsoever.Wrong. He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself. But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and reasonably consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.
The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are: and
And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances. It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges. There are no charges. He's dead. The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.
To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.
But even if the statute were applicable to him , before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary. That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . . against the others imminent use of unlawful force." And he would have no duty to retreat IF but ONLY IF he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him.
Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were. SO nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun. Nobody can say, for instance, tha the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used. Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death. Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.
If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.
That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.
Are you going to stand there and let said "stalker" walk up to ya?
Or are you going to confront said "stalker" and beat the shit out of said "stalker"?
Stand your ground is intended for someone with NO other way out but to stand up for yourself or get your ass whipped or worse.
"in a nutshell" wont cut it in court.
Now you're just making things up.He was following him. That is enough of a confrontation. Trayvon walking in the other direction would be retreating, something he no longer has a duty to do under this law.Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.
Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.
"Retreating" until he decided to confront Zimmerman?
He could have kept walking... Zimmerman did not stop him from continuing to go home.
Its a tragedy that he didnt make it home, but he also didn't need to confront Zimmerman and beat the fuck out of him.
You don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.
The legally armed man didn't know a young felony assaulter was prowling his neighborhood.
"Felony assaulter." You'll need to prove that assertion.
YOU demanding proof of an assertion is just about the funniest thing I've seen today. I knew you were a hypocritical imbecile, but you must actually be taking lessons and practicing at it.
Not if you feel threatened. In Florida.Was he? And if he was, why? I'd punch your face if you were stalking me and it turned out you were armed and intent on shooting me.
Punching someone who is following you is against the law.
Intent on shooting? Wow!
You should use those psychic powers to do the world some good. You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?
