That Gun Totting Evil White Man that shot that poor black teen.

[Peach]

The Az Ice Tea Can
Martin Body
Single shell casing
Readily surrendered weapon

What else is there ?

BAC/drug tests on killer, killer's clothing, witness BAC & drug tests, polygraph tests of willing witnesses. DNA samples, voice stress tests, the list can go on.

have to arrest to take BAC/drug
killers clothing = had it
witness BAC / drug = wut
DNA on AZ Tea Can
polygraph witness ? are they lying ?
Voice Stress Test = wut

No request for same noted on the PARTIAL POLICE report. In Florida you agree to submit to one if you are driving a vehicle.

 

[Si modo]

BAC/drug tests on killer, killer's clothing, witness BAC & drug tests, polygraph tests of willing witnesses. DNA samples, voice stress tests, the list can go on.

have to arrest to take BAC/drug
killers clothing = had it
witness BAC / drug = wut
DNA on AZ Tea Can
polygraph witness ? are they lying ?
Voice Stress Test = wut

No request for same noted on the PARTIAL POLICE report. In Florida you agree to submit to one if you are driving a vehicle.

The witnesses weren't driving a vehicle, were they?

And, without probable cause or consent, IT IS ILLEGAL to do BAC tests on anyone.

And, do you have a link to where drivers in Florida must submit to a BAC test if they are driving?

 

[Ravi]

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution?

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.

Martin had an equal right to self defense and to stand his ground.

If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.

He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.

Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

"the black" wasn't assualted? He was killed. And you don't know if he was assaulted before he was killed.

 

[The Gadfly]

I do agree that the law is worded poorly. But can anyone really believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a carte blanche in the form of any old claim to "self defense" that would completely preempt any further investigation or prosecution?

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.



If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.

He was trying to get away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was chasing after Martin.

Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

"the black" wasn't assualted? He was killed. And you don't know if he was assaulted before he was killed.

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, the intent of the law is to legally protect people who are defending themselves. Self-defense has always been legal in all 50 states, but proof of self-defense often comes with a heavy burden. This law was created to remove that burden.

The Jewish Mr. Zimmerman wasn't defending ground he gained, he was defending his body against a physical assault by the black.



If the black had killed Hispanic Zimmerman, then we could talk about whether that was protected by the law. But, this isn't the case. Further, Zimmerman was assaulted, the black was not.



Don't be stupid. Zimmerman was a fat slob. The young black was a buck bred for running, and was in prime physical condition. There's no way that Zimmerman could have kept up with the black.

"the black" wasn't assualted? He was killed. And you don't know if he was assaulted before he was killed.

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

 

[Peach]

"the black" wasn't assualted? He was killed. And you don't know if he was assaulted before he was killed.

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

This despite the fact Martin had no history of violence, WAS tested for drugs and alcohol, and phone calls indicate he was HIDING from Zimmerman. Zimmerman had violent incidents in HIS past, yet the conclusion is MARTIN attacked. We will learn what the Grand Jury concludes with STALE evidence, thanks to the Sanford police.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

This despite the fact Martin had no history of violence, WAS tested for drugs and alcohol, and phone calls indicate he was HIDING from Zimmerman. Zimmerman had violent incidents in HIS past, yet the conclusion is MARTIN attacked. We will learn what the Grand Jury concludes with STALE evidence, thanks to the Sanford police.

male teens are more aggressive. Zimmerman has no history of pulling a gun on people does he? you sound like the people that blame prostitutes for getting raped

 

[Si modo]

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

This despite the fact Martin had no history of violence, WAS tested for drugs and alcohol, and phone calls indicate he was HIDING from Zimmerman. Zimmerman had violent incidents in HIS past, yet the conclusion is MARTIN attacked. We will learn what the Grand Jury concludes with STALE evidence, thanks to the Sanford police.

Of course Martin was tested for alcohol and drugs....it's standard in an autopsy and autopsies are standard in fatal shootings.



So many have already told you that.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Any citizen has the right to stop another to make a citizen's arrest but excessive force cannot be used even if you are an off-duty police officer. Zimmerman previously called police and complained about burglars in the area and he reasonably suspected that the teen was 'up to no good' and tried to make a citizen's arrest and the teen obviously resisted and one witness claimed that Martin was on the top beating Zimmerman at some point of the confrontation. But the instigator of a confrontation cannot claim self-defense under the stand-your-ground law and Zimmerman made a mistake when he pursued Martin despite 911 operators instructing that they did not require him to do so.

 

[Si modo]

Any citizen has the right to stop another to make a citizen's arrest but excessive force cannot be used even if you are an off-duty police officer. Zimmerman previously called police and complained about burglars in the area and he reasonably suspected that the teen was 'up to no good' and tried to make a citizen's arrest and the teen obviously resisted and one witness claimed that Martin was on the top beating Zimmerman at some point of the confrontation. But the instigator of a confrontation cannot claim self-defense under the stand-your-ground law and Zimmerman made a mistake when he pursued Martin despite 911 operators instructing that they did not require him to do so.

Nothing in the Florida law indicates that an instigator, whether Zimmerman or Martin, is exempt from protection under the stand your ground law.


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course Martin was tested for alcohol and drugs....it's standard in an autopsy and autopsies are standard in fatal shootings.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Nothing in the Florida law indicates that an instigator, whether Zimmerman or Martin, is exempt from protection under the stand your ground law.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

This law is only applicable to the situation involving "the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle" and you cannot claim self-defense to use deadly force if you get into a street fight in public places, which is why Zimmerman should never have left his vehicle.

(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.

 

[Si modo]

Nothing in the Florida law indicates that an instigator, whether Zimmerman or Martin, is exempt from protection under the stand your ground law.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

This law is only applicable to the situation involving "the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle" and you cannot claim self-defense to use deadly force if you get into a street fight in public places, which is why Zimmerman should never have left his vehicle.

(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.

No, the law is not only applicable to a dwelling, etc.

Here is the statute itself (Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine):

(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:

....

(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.

....​

 

[ThirdTerm]

(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.

This section of the law does allow anyone to use deadly force if he thinks it's necessary to defend himself in any place but Zimmerman did not act reasonably when he left his vehicle to pursue the teen. Sen. Chris Smith said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim.

 

[Ravi]

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

This despite the fact Martin had no history of violence, WAS tested for drugs and alcohol, and phone calls indicate he was HIDING from Zimmerman. Zimmerman had violent incidents in HIS past, yet the conclusion is MARTIN attacked. We will learn what the Grand Jury concludes with STALE evidence, thanks to the Sanford police.

male teens are more aggressive. Zimmerman has no history of pulling a gun on people does he? you sound like the people that blame prostitutes for getting raped

Zimmerman has a history of attacking people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"the black" wasn't assualted? He was killed. And you don't know if he was assaulted before he was killed.

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

Not to mention that two years ago Martin was recorded as being 6'2" and 160 pounds, and rumor was that his alst measurements as a senior on the high school football team placed him at 6'3" and nearly 200 pounds. No one can confirm that because the school he attends has sealed his records. (For a bunch of people that run off at the mouth so much about transparency, the libtards sure seem to like sealing records from the public alot). Zimmerman was 260, but stood only 5'2"; a butter ball whose physique likely emboldened Martin.

Zimmerman said he was hit from behind and his bleeding injuries to the back of his head support that claim. Sounds like Martin gave him the old 'walk away then turn and hit' ploy most kids that grow up on the street learn. Never turn your back to a thug or anyone else that is getting froggy with you and might jump.

But the libtards dont give a shit about Martin or Zimmerman or the right to an assumption of innosence.

The target here is the repeal of 'stand your ground' laws and the Truth will just have to be raped while Zimmerman gets lynched if that is what it takes for the libtards to get their way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Zimmerman has a history of attacking people.

Bullshit.

He was never convicted in court.

Any other time you libtard stupid asses would be screaming that priors are irrelevant, but now they are because it suits you.

Just like the feminazi mantra 'a woman would never lie about rape' got buried deep during Clintons tenure.

Bunch of fucking hypocritical lying bastards.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, Right there in the last sentence is the problem. Now, much as we might think that Zimmerman likely assaulted Martin, BEFORE Martin struck him (with the can?) the first time, we have no witness to that, and thus no way to prove it (unless a bruise or something similar shows up on the autopsy report). While such an act by Zimmerman IS one plausible explanation for why Martin struck Zimmerman, there's another that is also plausible: Martin became angry and attacked Zimmerman as a result of the verbal confrontation. Two plausible explanations for an act we know occurred, (Martin DID strike Zimmerman) equals reasonable doubt, as to why it occurred, and on that basis, Zimmerman's allegation probably holds up, if it comes to a trial. It doesn't matter, that if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Zimmerman grabbed, or tried to grab (i.e. assaulted) Martin first; Zimmerman claims he did not, there's no proof that he did, and so there's reasonable doubt, and distasteful as it may be considering the entirety of his actions, in a trial, Zimmerman has to be given the benefit of it.

i
I think it's most likely a teenager struck a fatter older man first.

So Martin most likely struck Zimmerman because we have the girlfriend saying Martin first asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" - so we know from his girlfriend that Martin initiated a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman.

Knowing this/ believing the girlfriend/ - it makes sense to think Martin was ballsy enough to strike Zimmerman first. Zimmerman knows he is armed, Martin does not. Zimmerman feels safe. MArtin most likely does what lots of teenagers do when confronted by older pudgy guys...

and it ends in tragedy. and people here ad elsewhere get hard-ons playing favorites

Not to mention that two years ago Martin was recorded as being 6'2" and 160 pounds, and rumor was that his alst measurements as a senior on the high school football team placed him at 6'3" and nearly 200 pounds. No one can confirm that because the school he attends has sealed his records. (For a bunch of people that run off at the mouth so much about transparency, the libtards sure seem to like sealing records from the public alot). Zimmerman was 260, but stood only 5'2"; a butter ball whose physique likely emboldened Martin.

Zimmerman said he was hit from behind and his bleeding injuries to the back of his head support that claim. Sounds like Martin gave him the old 'walk away then turn and hit' ploy most kids that grow up on the street learn. Never turn your back to a thug or anyone else that is getting froggy with you and might jump.

But the libtards dont give a shit about Martin or Zimmerman or the right to an assumption of innosence.

The target here is the repeal of 'stand your ground' laws and the Truth will just have to be raped while Zimmerman gets lynched if that is what it takes for the libtards to get their way.

Why do you lie? He was a junior and he wasn't on the high school football team. Why don't you just call him a gorilla like you want to? I bet you'd see a black toddler and insist he was a hulking seven foot tall killer.

 

[Ravi]

Zimmerman has a history of attacking people.

Bullshit.

He was never convicted in court.

Any other time you libtard stupid asses would be screaming that priors are irrelevant, but now they are because it suits you.

Just like the feminazi mantra 'a woman would never lie about rape' got buried deep during Clintons tenure.

Bunch of fucking hypocritical lying bastards.

That he wasn't convicted doesn't mean he doesn't have a history

 

[JimBowie1958]

Zimmerman has a history of attacking people.

Bullshit.

He was never convicted in court.

Any other time you libtard stupid asses would be screaming that priors are irrelevant, but now they are because it suits you.

Just like the feminazi mantra 'a woman would never lie about rape' got buried deep during Clintons tenure.

Bunch of fucking hypocritical lying bastards.

That he wasn't convicted doesn't mean he doesn't have a history

Convictions are the only history that is relevant, dipstick.

A cop can arrest you for ANYTHING, but it doesnt mean that you actually did jackshit.