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

[Gadawg73]

Zimmerman as far as we know and what the facts show stopped following Trayvon.

Prpbably but they may have had an altercation before that also.
We do not know.
But who had the gun and who didn't?
Depends on the witnesses.
I am open to all evidence.

Fine they had an altercation in that scenario since Zimmerman was going to his vehicle would make Trayvon the aggressor

But who had the gun and who didn't?

That's not against the law and Zimmerman was lawfully carring

Let me to appeal to your reason and common sense reb:
Under Florida statute and I would bet $$$ in NC also, in most all conservative states that have statutes that favor the prosecution heavily there is a provacation part in it on their manslaughter statutes. It is the law.
The pursuit to begin with of Martin who was NOT doing any criminal acts will be used by the prosecution under that statute to show that Martin, a law abiding citizen that had done NOTHING wrong was provoked simply by being followed for no good reason.
Now under that statute if NOTHING happens, then nothing was illegal.
But something happened and that procacation part of the manslaughter covers ALL the time each had some form of contact with each other. Fact is Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. Zimmerman never follows him and nothing happens, Martin goes home.
You can not have Zimmerman ASSUMING a crime has gone down for him to be armed and pursue someone if that scenario leads to a dead man.
That is the law. Of course we will see what the witnesses say. IF Martin had a chance to just leave also after Zimmerman stopped pursuing him without any 1st altercation then a self defense stance will be his defense.
But the first pursuit is in evidence and will be used against him no matter what.
The NRA pushed this bill and watch it blow up in their face.

 

[koshergrl]

Martin was observed to be behaving strangely in a gated neighborhood that has had a string of robberies. He came towards Zimmerman first, then ran when Zimmerman moved to meet him. Zimmerman ran initially, then stopped pursuit when the 911 operator told him to (and he probably thought "what the HELL am I doing?")

That isn't profiling. He didn't notice the kid because he was black. He noticed him because he was behaving strangely, and that's what he said in his call to 911...the kid acted like he was on drugs.

 

[Gadawg73]

Martin was observed to be behaving strangely in a gated neighborhood that has had a string of robberies. He came towards Zimmerman first, then ran when Zimmerman moved to meet him. Zimmerman ran initially, then stopped pursuit when the 911 operator told him to (and he probably thought "what the HELL am I doing?")

That isn't profiling. He didn't notice the kid because he was black. He noticed him because he was behaving strangely, and that's what he said in his call to 911...the kid acted like he was on drugs.

What did he do that was "behaving strangely" and who observed it OTHER than Zimmerman?
Keep in mind that Zimmerman made over 90 nuisance calls to 911 about "behaving strangely" incidents that turned out to be nothing.
You have to have more than "behaving strangely" to play copper.
What was he specifically doing that was strange?
Where is there any evidence "the kid acted like he was on drugs"?
What exatly was he doing?

 

[percysunshine]

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

If you are going to confront USMB people with an accusation like that...ummmm...better be doing your home work....chuckle

 

[Ravi]

Martin was observed to be behaving strangely in a gated neighborhood that has had a string of robberies. He came towards Zimmerman first, then ran when Zimmerman moved to meet him. Zimmerman ran initially, then stopped pursuit when the 911 operator told him to (and he probably thought "what the HELL am I doing?")

That isn't profiling. He didn't notice the kid because he was black. He noticed him because he was behaving strangely, and that's what he said in his call to 911...the kid acted like he was on drugs.

What did he do that was "behaving strangely" and who observed it OTHER than Zimmerman?
Keep in mind that Zimmerman made over 90 nuisance calls to 911 about "behaving strangely" incidents that turned out to be nothing.
You have to have more than "behaving strangely" to play copper.
What was he specifically doing that was strange?
Where is there any evidence "the kid acted like he was on drugs"?
What exatly was he doing?

Walking while black.

 

[percysunshine]

Martin was observed to be behaving strangely in a gated neighborhood that has had a string of robberies. He came towards Zimmerman first, then ran when Zimmerman moved to meet him. Zimmerman ran initially, then stopped pursuit when the 911 operator told him to (and he probably thought "what the HELL am I doing?")

That isn't profiling. He didn't notice the kid because he was black. He noticed him because he was behaving strangely, and that's what he said in his call to 911...the kid acted like he was on drugs.

What did he do that was "behaving strangely" and who observed it OTHER than Zimmerman?
Keep in mind that Zimmerman made over 90 nuisance calls to 911 about "behaving strangely" incidents that turned out to be nothing.
You have to have more than "behaving strangely" to play copper.
What was he specifically doing that was strange?
Where is there any evidence "the kid acted like he was on drugs"?
What exatly was he doing?

Walking while black.

Maybe it was just sauntering.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prpbably but they may have had an altercation before that also.
We do not know.
But who had the gun and who didn't?
Depends on the witnesses.
I am open to all evidence.

Fine they had an altercation in that scenario since Zimmerman was going to his vehicle would make Trayvon the aggressor

But who had the gun and who didn't?

That's not against the law and Zimmerman was lawfully carring

Let me to appeal to your reason and common sense reb:
Under Florida statute and I would bet $$$ in NC also, in most all conservative states that have statutes that favor the prosecution heavily there is a provacation part in it on their manslaughter statutes. It is the law.
The pursuit to begin with of Martin who was NOT doing any criminal acts will be used by the prosecution under that statute to show that Martin, a law abiding citizen that had done NOTHING wrong was provoked simply by being followed for no good reason.
Now under that statute if NOTHING happens, then nothing was illegal.
But something happened and that procacation part of the manslaughter covers ALL the time each had some form of contact with each other. Fact is Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. Zimmerman never follows him and nothing happens, Martin goes home.
You can not have Zimmerman ASSUMING a crime has gone down for him to be armed and pursue someone if that scenario leads to a dead man.
That is the law. Of course we will see what the witnesses say. IF Martin had a chance to just leave also after Zimmerman stopped pursuing him without any 1st altercation then a self defense stance will be his defense.
But the first pursuit is in evidence and will be used against him no matter what.
The NRA pushed this bill and watch it blow up in their face.

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

 

[Vidi]

Fine they had an altercation in that scenario since Zimmerman was going to his vehicle would make Trayvon the aggressor


That's not against the law and Zimmerman was lawfully carring

Let me to appeal to your reason and common sense reb:
Under Florida statute and I would bet $$$ in NC also, in most all conservative states that have statutes that favor the prosecution heavily there is a provacation part in it on their manslaughter statutes. It is the law.
The pursuit to begin with of Martin who was NOT doing any criminal acts will be used by the prosecution under that statute to show that Martin, a law abiding citizen that had done NOTHING wrong was provoked simply by being followed for no good reason.
Now under that statute if NOTHING happens, then nothing was illegal.
But something happened and that procacation part of the manslaughter covers ALL the time each had some form of contact with each other. Fact is Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. Zimmerman never follows him and nothing happens, Martin goes home.
You can not have Zimmerman ASSUMING a crime has gone down for him to be armed and pursue someone if that scenario leads to a dead man.
That is the law. Of course we will see what the witnesses say. IF Martin had a chance to just leave also after Zimmerman stopped pursuing him without any 1st altercation then a self defense stance will be his defense.
But the first pursuit is in evidence and will be used against him no matter what.
The NRA pushed this bill and watch it blow up in their face.

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. He absolutely should have been arrested because of that.

I spoke to my cousin yesterday about this case. He is an officer here in a small town in MN. He said it doesnt matter if it was self defense or not, you arrest the guy and hand the case over to the DA. Its up to them to decide if charges are to be filed. He specifically said," Its the officers job to colelct evidence. Not to decide guilt."

Like I said before, I think the officers did a disservice to both Martin and Zimmerman in this case. had they followed procedure and done their jobs, if Trayvon was the agressor, Zimmerman might have seen an involuntary manslaughter charge and even walked from that once he faced a jury.

Now because they didnt do their damned jobs, Zimmerman, no matter what the truth is, will be a social pariah for the rest of his life.

basically, Im saying that IF Zimmermans story is true, the cops fucked him.

 

[Si modo]

Let me to appeal to your reason and common sense reb:
Under Florida statute and I would bet $$$ in NC also, in most all conservative states that have statutes that favor the prosecution heavily there is a provacation part in it on their manslaughter statutes. It is the law.
The pursuit to begin with of Martin who was NOT doing any criminal acts will be used by the prosecution under that statute to show that Martin, a law abiding citizen that had done NOTHING wrong was provoked simply by being followed for no good reason.
Now under that statute if NOTHING happens, then nothing was illegal.
But something happened and that procacation part of the manslaughter covers ALL the time each had some form of contact with each other. Fact is Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. Zimmerman never follows him and nothing happens, Martin goes home.
You can not have Zimmerman ASSUMING a crime has gone down for him to be armed and pursue someone if that scenario leads to a dead man.
That is the law. Of course we will see what the witnesses say. IF Martin had a chance to just leave also after Zimmerman stopped pursuing him without any 1st altercation then a self defense stance will be his defense.
But the first pursuit is in evidence and will be used against him no matter what.
The NRA pushed this bill and watch it blow up in their face.

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. ....

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me to appeal to your reason and common sense reb:
Under Florida statute and I would bet $$$ in NC also, in most all conservative states that have statutes that favor the prosecution heavily there is a provacation part in it on their manslaughter statutes. It is the law.
The pursuit to begin with of Martin who was NOT doing any criminal acts will be used by the prosecution under that statute to show that Martin, a law abiding citizen that had done NOTHING wrong was provoked simply by being followed for no good reason.
Now under that statute if NOTHING happens, then nothing was illegal.
But something happened and that procacation part of the manslaughter covers ALL the time each had some form of contact with each other. Fact is Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. Zimmerman never follows him and nothing happens, Martin goes home.
You can not have Zimmerman ASSUMING a crime has gone down for him to be armed and pursue someone if that scenario leads to a dead man.
That is the law. Of course we will see what the witnesses say. IF Martin had a chance to just leave also after Zimmerman stopped pursuing him without any 1st altercation then a self defense stance will be his defense.
But the first pursuit is in evidence and will be used against him no matter what.
The NRA pushed this bill and watch it blow up in their face.

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. He absolutely should have been arrested because of that.

I spoke to my cousin yesterday about this case. He is an officer here in a small town in MN. He said it doesnt matter if it was self defense or not, you arrest the guy and hand the case over to the DA. Its up to them to decide if charges are to be filed. He specifically said," Its the officers job to colelct evidence. Not to decide guilt."

Like I said before, I think the officers did a disservice to both Martin and Zimmerman in this case. had they followed procedure and done their jobs, if Trayvon was the agressor, Zimmerman might have seen an involuntary manslaughter charge and even walked from that once he faced a jury.

Now because they didnt do their damned jobs, Zimmerman, no matter what the truth is, will be a social pariah for the rest of his life.

basically, Im saying that IF Zimmermans story is true, the cops fucked him.

Here is part of Florida's Stand your ground law

(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.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Yes Zimmerman had the right of self defense even though he left his vehicle.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. ....

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

Damn you with the truth about the law.

 

[IndependntLogic]

What the fuck ? who are you posting too? everything you post is jibberish and about nothing dealing with the topic.
You are on ignore. You post nothing worth commenting about you arrogant son of a bitch. Do you understand this?

LOL!!!! owned...

The only thing you own is maybe the shoes on your feet and that may be doubtful. Do you want to try that post one more time instead of editing what I wrote?

I thought you had me on ignore? LOL!!
Um yeah. The shoes on my feet remark? LOL! Yeah, you own a successful business...

 

[Barb]

Within a stones' throw of the Traylon Martin rally at the Atlanta University campus yesterday a 3 year old black child was shot in the stomach and killed by a black man.
Where is the rally about this? Where is the public outrage in the black community about a 3 year old black child being killed?
They can not cry racism on that one. I am sure they are very upset about it but since whitey was not involved just another day.

How do you know there isn't outrage? The media shows what is sensational, not what is commonplace. Man bites dog is a headline, dog bites man...not so much.

Additionally, there is a response in poor communities (not black anymore, as these are the one commons that HAS been fully integrated). There are candle lit vigils, marches against community violence, community funded (for generations, mind you) recreation, arts, boys and girls centers, churches, et cetera.

What there isn't, is timely police response to the calls of VICTIMS, community resources in re police, fire, mass transit, hospitals, groceries, better roads, housing construction, schools, supplies, teachers,and ALL the infrastructure wealthier communities TAKE FOR GRANTED as their DUE.

You live one day, with any form of grace, in a poverty ridden neighborhood and get back to us poor slobs on how we should react to the abject want all around us, the blatant disregard of those who consider themselves our betters (when they're no better than reptiles themselves), and the result of public policy that not one of us had a voice in crafting, and that not one ounce of research was conducted in the formation of with our neighborhoods in mind.

In short, fuck you. Fuck you running.

You sure have a lot of free time, you poor slob you.
There is no "public policy" that makes you post here instead of working.
YOU make your neighborhoods, the public policy doesn't.
But that would be a good thing to march for, a better neighborhood.
Why don't you advocate a community that helps each other, rebuilds the community and neighborhood and stands for justice for one and all.
Instead of the few that you may believe it is politically correct to stand for.
On any given day whenever the wind is blowing your direction only.
So go and march and demonstrate for a better neighborhood and community where you live and see how many folk you get behind you versus those that have the time to march for this poor kid and his family that have been led by those that have THEIR best interests in mind and foremost and DO NOT live in their neighborhoods.

And you continue to have enough time on you own to assume you know an awful lot about people you clearly have no contact with.
First it was what is and is not protested and worked towards in poor communities.
Now it's what kind of time I have on my hands, and what I do or don't do with it.

I work full time nights, with some lag time between when my reports come in, take care of a full time family, and until very recently handled a full time college course load. I also belong and volunteer at a local chapter of a national fraternal organization that works to help the community we're based in, and the children that the national order supports, by cooking, cleaning, and soon by taking over some bookeeping duties.

People don't "march" for better neighborhoods; that is the stuff of community involvement and policy. There isn't a whole lot of time for poor people to become involved when they're so busy working to keep the roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the heat on, but surprisingly, and as I noted in my original response to you, many make the time to do so in varied ways. I planned my degrees to be better able / situated to help give people who live in poor communities a greater voice in the policies that shape their surroundings.

So now that we've dispatched any notion that you have a clue what your talking about regarding the concerns, desires, and activism of people in poor communities, as well as what a poor slob like me does in my own free time, maybe the discussion can get back to the dead seventeen year old boy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL!!!! owned...

The only thing you own is maybe the shoes on your feet and that may be doubtful. Do you want to try that post one more time instead of editing what I wrote?

I thought you had me on ignore? LOL!!
Um yeah. The shoes on my feet remark? LOL! Yeah, you own a successful business...

I took you off if you missed that part.

 

[Ravi]

1. Zimmerman calls 911 says he lives in a community that has some recent break ins
2. He says he saw a suspicious guy maybe a black male walking around looking at homes.
2. while talking with the dispatcher he says the guy is acting strange, and starting looking his way. and started walking his way.
5. Zimmerman at this time leaves his vehicle
6. Trayvon runs away.
7. Dispatchers ask if Zimmerman is following the black male, Zimmerman says yes they say you don't have to do that He acknowledge's that with OK.
8. Zimmerman talks about meeting with the police at a certain location
9. It is at this time in my opinion while Zimmerman is heading back to his vehicle Trayvon walks up to Zimmerman and ask Zimmerman if he had a problem.
10. Zimmerman says no and at that time in my opinion Trayvon becomes the aggressor.
11. In the struggle Zimmerman said that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun.
Now why would Zimmerman shoot Trayvon if he knew the police were in route unless Trayvon did attack Zimmerman?

I could speculate and give you some opinions why Trayvon went to hit Zimmerman and tried to take his gun, But no doubt it would be my opinion.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. ....

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. ....

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

You would have to prove that martin had a right to be there
And that Martin felt threaten
and that Zimmerman had his weapon drawn.

It does fit for Zimmerman according to witness statements.

 

[Si modo]

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, once he left the car, he loses the protection of the Stand Your Ground Act. ....

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

Yes, it would get either one of them off.

What's missing, in your opinion, for it to apply to Zimmerman?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

Yes, it would get either one of them off.

What's missing, in your opinion, for it to apply to Zimmerman?

Where it stop applying to martin was when he ran from Zimmerman and then came back making Martin the aggressor

 

[Si modo]

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

Yes, it would get either one of them off.

What's missing, in your opinion, for it to apply to Zimmerman?

Where it stop applying to martin was when he ran from Zimmerman and then came back making Martin the aggressor

I'm not convinced (reports from press) that Martin did that.

Once the scuffle started, both are aggressors, so both are attacking. I don't see the legal protection being exempt from either.

 

[Ravi]

Here's the statute. Please show me where the law says what you claim:

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.

That law would get Martin off if he'd have killed Zimmerman, or it should have done so. But I don't see it backing up Zimmerman.

Yes, it would get either one of them off.

What's missing, in your opinion, for it to apply to Zimmerman?

The fact that he was following Martin and Martin had done nothing wrong.