I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[Gadawg73]

Here's a case that was in today's paper for contrast. A man was ruled immune from prosecution for killing a burglar that he caught in the act. Notice that a judge made the determination. In Zimmerman's case, it never got to a judge to decide.

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decision - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

Dumbass, it has not even been indicted yet.
You are about as stupid as a box of rocks.
Civics class 101 for you, back to 6th grade.

You really don't know what you're talking about. In Zimmerman's case, the DA and/or the police department made the decision to not press charges. Under the stand your ground law, only a judge has the authority to make that decision.

DA takes the case after the police make an arrest.
DA TAKES THE CASE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A DA can NOT take a case to the grand jury basing their decision ON THE LAW, and SYG is THE LAW.
I have been doing this for over 30 years. I own a detective agency and have investigated over 3000 criminal cases with over 1000 going to trial.
I do this for a living.
Fool, the police CAN NEVER make the decision NOT to take a case to the grand jury.
They have no authority to do that.
Please, educate yourself as you are making yourself look very foolish here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your ENTIRE post was nothing but supposition and conjecture. Nothing supported by facts.

So kind of like every post of yours....

You're also lying on top of that.

W.O.W.!!!

The problem here Marc, is that you're a racist. So instead of letting the evidence guide you, you determine guilt or innocence by skin color.

 

[Ravi]

Dumbass, it has not even been indicted yet.
You are about as stupid as a box of rocks.
Civics class 101 for you, back to 6th grade.

You really don't know what you're talking about. In Zimmerman's case, the DA and/or the police department made the decision to not press charges. Under the stand your ground law, only a judge has the authority to make that decision.

DA takes the case after the police make an arrest.
DA TAKES THE CASE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A DA can NOT take a case to the grand jury basing their decision ON THE LAW, and SYG is THE LAW.
I have been doing this for over 30 years. I own a detective agency and have investigated over 3000 criminal cases with over 1000 going to trial.
I do this for a living.
Fool, the police CAN NEVER make the decision NOT to take a case to the grand jury.
They have no authority to do that.
Please, educate yourself as you are making yourself look very foolish here.

You obviously didn't read my link about the case that was in the paper today. There was no grand jury involvement because the stabber invoked stand your ground.

Also, the police chief stated that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no probable cause UNDER stand your ground.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

 

[Si modo]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

What about Zimmerman and/or his actions exclude him from that law?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

What about Zimmerman and/or his actions exclude him from that law?

He followed and intiated a confrontation, this exempts him from protection according to the the way the language in the law reads and the 2 people who drafted it.

I could be wrong but one thing is for sure, that is a judge's and/or jury's job to decide and not a police chief's.

 

[Si modo]

You really don't know what you're talking about. In Zimmerman's case, the DA and/or the police department made the decision to not press charges. Under the stand your ground law, only a judge has the authority to make that decision.

DA takes the case after the police make an arrest.
DA TAKES THE CASE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A DA can NOT take a case to the grand jury basing their decision ON THE LAW, and SYG is THE LAW.
I have been doing this for over 30 years. I own a detective agency and have investigated over 3000 criminal cases with over 1000 going to trial.
I do this for a living.
Fool, the police CAN NEVER make the decision NOT to take a case to the grand jury.
They have no authority to do that.
Please, educate yourself as you are making yourself look very foolish here.

You obviously didn't read my link about the case that was in the paper today. There was no grand jury involvement because the stabber invoked stand your ground.

Also, the police chief stated that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no probable cause UNDER stand your ground.

And, if I were a cop in Florida, I wouldn't think I would be able to charge him, either, because of that law.

Ravi, you posted a few days ago something about a big increase in 'justifiable' homicides since the passage of that SYG law. Can you repost that info if it's not too much trouble. I looked for your earlier post, but failed in finding it.

Folks should know about that increase, IMO.

 

[Si modo]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

What about Zimmerman and/or his actions exclude him from that law?

He followed and intiated a confrontation, this exempts him from protection according to the the way the language in the law reads and the 2 people who drafted it.

I could be wrong but one thing is for sure, that is a judge's and/or jury's job to decide and not a police chief's.

You keep saying that, but it simply is not true.

There is NO EXEMPTION for following and/or initiating in that statute.

See:

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 other’s 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.

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 person’s 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 person’s 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.​

Think about it, too, Pilgrim; there can't be that exemption. If I shove someone, I've initiated a fight. They in turn, try to beat the ever-living-shit out of me and I can no longer use deadly force to save my life?

I don't think so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hope the police are working on this case as hard as we all are.

They have more facts than we do, so there is less guess work involve.

 

[Gadawg73]

DA takes the case after the police make an arrest.
DA TAKES THE CASE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A DA can NOT take a case to the grand jury basing their decision ON THE LAW, and SYG is THE LAW.
I have been doing this for over 30 years. I own a detective agency and have investigated over 3000 criminal cases with over 1000 going to trial.
I do this for a living.
Fool, the police CAN NEVER make the decision NOT to take a case to the grand jury.
They have no authority to do that.
Please, educate yourself as you are making yourself look very foolish here.

You obviously didn't read my link about the case that was in the paper today. There was no grand jury involvement because the stabber invoked stand your ground.

Also, the police chief stated that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no probable cause UNDER stand your ground.

And, if I were a cop in Florida, I wouldn't think I would be able to charge him, either, because of that law.

Ravi, you posted a few days ago something about a big increase in 'justifiable' homicides since the passage of that SYG law. Can you repost that info if it's not too much trouble. I looked for your earlier post, but failed in finding it.

Folks should know about that increase, IMO.

Zimmerman probably did not know the law existed.
No doubt that is why he was not arrested.
A judge makes that ruling when the defense is required to list their affirmative defense BEFORE TRIAL. If a judge rules that that defense can not be used a defendant STILL can use self defense statute which is a totally different statute.
As I have stated from the start I give Martin the benefit of the doubt if the gun had been pulled before the attack. That makes Martin defending himself.
Martin was breaking no laws apparantly and if a gun is pulled on him he has every right to attack Zimmerman in self defense. This could be the case. Makes for a minumum of voluntary manslaughter and possibly murder.
BUT WAIT FOR THE GRAND JURY CASE.
Grand jury presentation AFTER AN ARREST is different than with NO arrest.

 

[Ravi]

DA takes the case after the police make an arrest.
DA TAKES THE CASE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A DA can NOT take a case to the grand jury basing their decision ON THE LAW, and SYG is THE LAW.
I have been doing this for over 30 years. I own a detective agency and have investigated over 3000 criminal cases with over 1000 going to trial.
I do this for a living.
Fool, the police CAN NEVER make the decision NOT to take a case to the grand jury.
They have no authority to do that.
Please, educate yourself as you are making yourself look very foolish here.

You obviously didn't read my link about the case that was in the paper today. There was no grand jury involvement because the stabber invoked stand your ground.

Also, the police chief stated that Zimmerman wasn't arrested because there was no probable cause UNDER stand your ground.

And, if I were a cop in Florida, I wouldn't think I would be able to charge him, either, because of that law.

Ravi, you posted a few days ago something about a big increase in 'justifiable' homicides since the passage of that SYG law. Can you repost that info if it's not too much trouble. I looked for your earlier post, but failed in finding it.

Folks should know about that increase, IMO.

I couldn't find the same link but here is an article discussing it:

According to Florida state records, justifiable homicides by private citizens - not law enforcement officers - have risen steadily under the stand your ground law. In 2010, there were 40; in 2004, there were eight. FBI statistics on justifiable homicides nationwide show similar increases, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010.

Florida killing raises questions about 'stand your ground' laws - KansasCity.com

 

[Ravi]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

I agree that the police chief was wrong.

I also agree that the law shouldn't apply to him, simply because Martin's crime, according to Zimmerman, was wondering around the neighborhood. And Zimmerman did follow him.

It's possible that in the end he acted in self-defense, but that is a determination that can only be made in the course of a trial.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What about Zimmerman and/or his actions exclude him from that law?

He followed and intiated a confrontation, this exempts him from protection according to the the way the language in the law reads and the 2 people who drafted it.

I could be wrong but one thing is for sure, that is a judge's and/or jury's job to decide and not a police chief's.

You keep saying that, but it simply is not true.

There is NO EXEMPTION for following and/or initiating in that statute.

See:

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 other’s 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.

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 person’s 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 person’s 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.​

Think about it, too, Pilgrim; there can't be that exemption. If I shove someone, I've initiated a fight. They in turn, try to beat the ever-living-shit out of me and I can no longer use deadly force to save my life?

I don't think so.

Yes you would not get protected under the stand your ground law if you intiated the confrontation, nothing in the language you just posted provides for you to be protected if you initiated the situation.

 

[saveliberty]

Ravi the police cheif was wrong.

The police should have arrested him and let the court decide if stand your ground covers him or not, since its not the police's job to be judge or jury. (The law shouldn't apply to zimmerman from the information that is available)

I agree that the police chief was wrong.

I also agree that the law shouldn't apply to him, simply because Martin's crime, according to Zimmerman, was wondering around the neighborhood. And Zimmerman did follow him.

It's possible that in the end he acted in self-defense, but that is a determination that can only be made in the course of a trial.

This is why I think it ends up a negligent homicide plea.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I couldn't find the same link but here is an article discussing it:

According to Florida state records, justifiable homicides by private citizens - not law enforcement officers - have risen steadily under the stand your ground law. In 2010, there were 40; in 2004, there were eight. FBI statistics on justifiable homicides nationwide show similar increases, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010.

Florida killing raises questions about 'stand your ground' laws - KansasCity.com

Have the total number of firearm homicides increased or decreased?

They have decreased.

Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk

Since the total has decreased, is your complaint that it's the bad guys instead of innocent victims, who are dying?

 

[Si modo]

He followed and intiated a confrontation, this exempts him from protection according to the the way the language in the law reads and the 2 people who drafted it.

I could be wrong but one thing is for sure, that is a judge's and/or jury's job to decide and not a police chief's.

You keep saying that, but it simply is not true.

There is NO EXEMPTION for following and/or initiating in that statute.

See:

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 other’s 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.

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 person’s 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 person’s 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.​

Think about it, too, Pilgrim; there can't be that exemption. If I shove someone, I've initiated a fight. They in turn, try to beat the ever-living-shit out of me and I can no longer use deadly force to save my life?

I don't think so.

Yes you would not get protected under the stand your ground law if you intiated the confrontation, nothing in the language you just posted provides for you to be protected if you initiated the situation.

Ummmmmm, the law doesn't HAVE to explicitly state every condition under which the law applies.

No requirement or canon of interpretation says that. Ever.


The law is presumed to apply to everyone, unless explicitly exempted, ESPECIALLY when exemptions are listed. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Expression of one [exemption] excludes the other [exemption]). We don't just make shit up as we go along in this country.

Now, if the legislature addressed that specific instance in their discussions (which are on record) BEFORE the passage of the law, then you may have a point.

However, what politicians say they meant AFTER passage, means shit in a court.

 

[The Infidel]

This case is very disturbing...

They have put a bounty out on that poor man, and not a word from DOJ or Obama...

Spike Lee posts the wrong address for Zimmerman, and not a word from DOJ or Obama...

Al Sharpton stirring up racist hatred, and not a word from DOJ or Obama...

I am shocked at where we are going as a nation.


WHERE ARE YOU OBAMA...????? WHERE ARE YOU ERIC HOLDER?????


YOU FUCKING BASTATRDS!!!!!​

 

[beagle9]

The media is repeating lies

And you know this because you know the "truth," right? You were there, or something, right? No, you weren't. So shut up with the bullshit.

Funny how this type of answer, can easily be a two edged sword....Did you think of that when lost your cool in such a way ?

 

[Vidi]

You keep saying that, but it simply is not true.

There is NO EXEMPTION for following and/or initiating in that statute.

See:

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 other’s 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.

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 person’s 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 person’s 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.​

Think about it, too, Pilgrim; there can't be that exemption. If I shove someone, I've initiated a fight. They in turn, try to beat the ever-living-shit out of me and I can no longer use deadly force to save my life?

I don't think so.

Yes you would not get protected under the stand your ground law if you intiated the confrontation, nothing in the language you just posted provides for you to be protected if you initiated the situation.

Ummmmmm, the law doesn't HAVE to explicitly state every condition under which the law applies.

No requirement or canon of interpretation says that. Ever.


The law is presumed to apply to everyone, unless explicitly exempted, ESPECIALLY when exemptions are listed. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Expression of one [exemption] excludes the other [exemption]). We don't just make shit up as we go along in this country.

Now, if the legislature addressed that specific instance in their discussions (which are on record) BEFORE the passage of the law, then you may have a point.

However, what politicians say they meant AFTER passage, means shit in a court.

Correct. Once the law is passed its up to the judiciary to inpret the law.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You are a lying idiot most of what you said is untrue or based on racial emotions.

A whackjob will retort without facts or even addressing positions. They simply insult the poster. So do you have anything to counter what Marc actually posted?

A person can kill while defending them self

1. People who speak English as a first language, use "themselves".
2. Generally you're not defending yourself from someone if you're following them.

He stopped when told to do so.

You know this how?

There is Nothing wrong with observing a stranger who has entered your neighborhood, which has had some recent break-ins.

Where are you from? You really should learn our language if you're going to live here. So wait. A moment ago, you said he stopped following Trayvon because your magical psychic powers told you so. Now you say it's okay that he was pursuing him. Please make up your mind.


We have a 17 year old who hit another person and went for his gun

You know this how? Oh yeah. Forgot. Psychic powers and all that...


Not enough evidence to arrest

Let's see. Hmmm. Unarmed teen shot by adult. Nah, we shouldn't even investigate!

Since when is defending your self wrong?

You know he was defending himself how? Oh yeah. Forgot. Psychic Conservative Powers let you know that anything that will back up the Conservative position must be the facts.
At least you're entertaining!