New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[PredFan]

What's funny about that? You often laugh at people's injuries do you?

Having ones head slammed to the pavement results in the same injuries a baby can suffer when shaken. The brain is smacked against the skull violently.

This is the kind of thing YOU think is funny?

Hey Pred...here's something for ya: Babies (and small children) get "Shaken Baby Syndrome."

You would think he would know that....oh no wait its predfan,he doesnt

Stupidity chimes in.

 

[paperview]

No, I'm laughing at the lawyer using absurd terminology, you idiot.

 

[PredFan]

No, I'm laughing at the lawyer using absurd terminology, you idiot.

Sure you are.

 

[The Gadfly]

What unadulterated crap.

Someone chases you. Runs after you, in fact.

They present no threat to you at all?

Legally, none whatever; there's no threat (as defined by law) until the pursuer does one or more of the following: (1) makes an unlawful threat of violence, such as "I'm gonna kill you/kick your ass/etc" (2) makes an unlawful demand, such as "Give me your wallet/money, watch, etc." (strong arm robbery) , (3) initiates an unlawful touching/punching/grabbing/etc. (battery, unlawful restraint), or (4) unlawfully produces/presents a weapon.

Absent one or a combination of those conditions above, for all I know, the person could be chasing me to tell me I drooped my wallet, or car keys, or even to warn me I was running into a dangerous area or situation. The mere fact of pursuit most certainly does NOT give me a legal right to presume a sinister motive and initiate defensive use of force (as in a blow, presentation of a weapon, etc.); there is plenty of legal precedent for that in common law. I cannot strike, present a weapon or use any other force simply because I believe another person "must be up to no good"; he must actually commit or attempt to commit some unlawful act, or be reasonably suspected of having already committed one (fleeing felon, or having stolen property in visible possession (in some states)). CHASING SOMEONE, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT A CRIME, and there are good common sense reasons why it is not a crime.

 

[koshergrl]

It's traumatic brain injury...it doesn't happen just in children. Adults also can suffer from injury that is a result of being shaken or hitting something hard enough to cause the brain to bounce off the inside of the skull.

"Punch drunk" fighters have the adult form of shaken baby syndrome, incidentally.

 

[The Gadfly]

What's funny about that? You often laugh at people's injuries do you?

Having ones head slammed to the pavement results in the same injuries a baby can suffer when shaken. The brain is smacked against the skull violently.

This is the kind of thing YOU think is funny?

Hey Pred...here's something for ya: Babies (and small children) get "Shaken Baby Syndrome."

You would think he would know that....oh no wait its predfan,he doesnt

Uh huh. Now, do either of you two smartasses have any professional experience in medicine or an allied profession (M.D., R.N., EMT, Paramedic)? Well, do you? if so, please tell us what your experience level is.

 

[uptownlivin90]

What unadulterated crap.

Someone chases you. Runs after you, in fact.

They present no threat to you at all?

Legally, none whatever; there's no threat (as defined by law) until the pursuer does one or more of the following: (1) makes an unlawful threat of violence, such as "I'm gonna kill you/kick your ass/etc" (2) makes an unlawful demand, such as "Give me your wallet/money, watch, etc." (strong arm robbery) , (3) initiates an unlawful touching/punching/grabbing/etc. (battery, unlawful restraint), or (4) unlawfully produces/presents a weapon.

What is considered lawful and unlawful in regards to producing/presenting a weapon in the state of Florida?

 

[KissMy]

Someone chases you. Runs after you, in fact.

They present no threat to you at all?

Legally, none whatever; there's no threat (as defined by law) until the pursuer does one or more of the following: (1) makes an unlawful threat of violence, such as "I'm gonna kill you/kick your ass/etc" (2) makes an unlawful demand, such as "Give me your wallet/money, watch, etc." (strong arm robbery) , (3) initiates an unlawful touching/punching/grabbing/etc. (battery, unlawful restraint), or (4) unlawfully produces/presents a weapon.

What is considered lawful and unlawful in regards to producing/presenting a weapon in the state of Florida?

Open carry is legal. A gun in a holster is not considered threatening. You can not punch someone because you see they are carrying a gun. You cannot stand your ground because you see they are carrying a gun. You cannot attack & stand your ground because someone is trying to ask you a question.

 

[The Gadfly]

Someone chases you. Runs after you, in fact.

They present no threat to you at all?

Legally, none whatever; there's no threat (as defined by law) until the pursuer does one or more of the following: (1) makes an unlawful threat of violence, such as "I'm gonna kill you/kick your ass/etc" (2) makes an unlawful demand, such as "Give me your wallet/money, watch, etc." (strong arm robbery) , (3) initiates an unlawful touching/punching/grabbing/etc. (battery, unlawful restraint), or (4) unlawfully produces/presents a weapon.

What is considered lawful and unlawful in regards to producing/presenting a weapon in the state of Florida?

Uptown, that's actually an excellent question. I know what the law ordinarily is in most states, but a number of Florida statutes (their arrest statute, for example), are simply written differently. In most places, "unlawful pointing/presenting of a firearm" would be drawing it (without necessarily firing it) as a threat, in a situation that was something other than self defense, or defense of the life of another, stopping a forcible felony in progress, or in some states, making a lawful arrest. (I add that last because in my state, the statute that allows use of deadly force to protect one's home, stop a felony in progress, etc. is actually under a "power of arrest" conferred upon "any citizen of this state" under certain specified circumstances). I know, that certain concealed carry laws (in states which do not allow open carrying), provide that merely showing the holstered weapon intentionally is a violation of the law (unless one is ordered to by a law enforcement officer, of course). If I had to guess, I'd assume the Florida law for civilians authorized to carry concealed would be something like the first part of the above, but I have no idea how the Florida law is worded, and as we've seen with the "Stand Your Ground" self defense statute there, the wording can make a lot of difference. It may be a moot point in this case, because to this point, we have not yet seen any evidence that Zimmerman intentionally showed his weapon in any way prior to drawing it and shooting Martin (having it inadvertently revealed in the course of a struggle would not itself be a violation of any concealed carry law I've ever seen). That said, there exists the possibility that something we don't know could come to light, and combine with whatever the Florida law says about "pointing and presenting", to be germane to this particular case. We have, after all, had some surprising revelations related to the wording of Florida laws here. Curious are the ways of legislators....

 

[The Gadfly]

Legally, none whatever; there's no threat (as defined by law) until the pursuer does one or more of the following: (1) makes an unlawful threat of violence, such as "I'm gonna kill you/kick your ass/etc" (2) makes an unlawful demand, such as "Give me your wallet/money, watch, etc." (strong arm robbery) , (3) initiates an unlawful touching/punching/grabbing/etc. (battery, unlawful restraint), or (4) unlawfully produces/presents a weapon.

What is considered lawful and unlawful in regards to producing/presenting a weapon in the state of Florida?

Open carry is legal. A gun in a holster is not considered threatening. You can not punch someone because you see they are carrying a gun. You cannot stand your ground because you see they are carrying a gun. You cannot attack & stand your ground because someone is trying to ask you a question.

FL has open carry? I did not know that; in that case, you're right; the weapon would have to actually be drawn, without sufficient lawful cause, in order to be considered a legal threat ("unlawful pointing/presenting").

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course words can be used in a criminal way. Hate speech, libel, inciting, slander, harassment, etc. and so on.

LIBEL AND SLANDER ARE CIVIL CASES, NEVER CRIMINAL
Hate speech is OUTSIDE THE LAW.
Laws prohibitng hate speech in the United States ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

They can NEVER be used in a criminal way, ever.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course words can be used in a criminal way. Hate speech, libel, inciting, slander, harassment, etc. and so on.

Agreed, mostly.

I disagree with hate crime laws. In my opinion, it's trying to legislate thoughts. Far too intrusive and unnecessary.

Hate crime is DIFFERENT than hate speech.
There are NO laws against hate speech and libel and slander ARE NOT criminal.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hard to believe the lack of knowledge about the Constitution in this thread.

 

[PredFan]

Hard to believe the lack of knowledge about the Constitution in this thread.

In many cases it is a lack of knowledge, many other cases it's desperation. Lefties are so desperate to not be proven wrong that they will say any damn fool thing to try to avoid it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hard to believe the lack of knowledge about the Constitution in this thread.

In many cases it is a lack of knowledge, many other cases it's desperation. Lefties are so desperate to not be proven wrong that they will say any damn fool thing to try to avoid it.

I hear it just as much from the right as the left.
Ignorance knows no party affiliation.

 

[PredFan]

Hard to believe the lack of knowledge about the Constitution in this thread.

In many cases it is a lack of knowledge, many other cases it's desperation. Lefties are so desperate to not be proven wrong that they will say any damn fool thing to try to avoid it.

I hear it just as much from the right as the left.
Ignorance knows no party affiliation.

For sure, but in THIS thread the lefties are decidedly against following the law of the land and with the lynch mob.

 

[Emma]

Have you heard the latest? Get this - New News: Zimmerman's lawyer now say's he suffered from
"Shaken Baby Syndrome" in the incident.

Oh dear lawd. lol

 

[Peach]

Have you heard the latest? Get this - New News: Zimmerman's lawyer now say's he suffered from
"Shaken Baby Syndrome" in the incident.

Oh dear lawd. lol

Yes, that could lead to DIMINISHED capacity, I believe.

 

[Emma]

His point, which has been made before, was that Zimmerman contends he shot Martin in self defense and feared for his life after the 17-year-old attacked him and began pounding his head into the concrete pavement of a gated community on a rainy evening in Sanford on February 26.
--
"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."

I thought Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin because the kid went for his gun?

 

[koshergrl]

No, it leads to blacking out and fuzziness at the time it's happening for sure.

It can lead to diminished capacity, if the damage is great enough.

It's inflicted traumatic brain injury (where have I heard that before?) usually associated with babies who have been shaken...but also occurs in adults who have been hit/shaken/kicked. It is what causes the condition referred to as "punch drunk".

PUNCH drunk. See? It happens when someone is PUNCHED. Get it? Huh? Get it?

Fucking moron lynch mob.