Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And if a man followed me in his truck and on foot I wouldn't have the right to feel I was in imminent danger?
And that if I was charged I wouldn't be able to show cause for fearing I might suffer bodily harm? I think you need to gain a little understanding on the law and how it has been used.
Have you looked up any cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground laws?
I think I easily could, and you not admitting that shows how dishonest you are. No wonder you defend Zimmerman no matter what.
no one is defending what he did---the question is "will he be convicted for anything"?
Ya ya--I know that you FEEL as if he should be but that's a different story.
You are right, that is a different story. Did you know that the golden rule argument cannot be used in court? You cannot ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, because you are then asking them to NOT be objective in their deliberations, which we hope they will be in this case and the verdict will evolve from the facts and the evidence presented, not from some arbitrary and unconsidered 'feeling' or pressure from the media.
You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.
Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.
I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.
You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.
Because, as we know, there is no difference between what you just described and chasing a guy while brandishing a pistol.
no one is defending what he did---the question is "will he be convicted for anything"?
Ya ya--I know that you FEEL as if he should be but that's a different story.
You are right, that is a different story. Did you know that the golden rule argument cannot be used in court? You cannot ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, because you are then asking them to NOT be objective in their deliberations, which we hope they will be in this case and the verdict will evolve from the facts and the evidence presented, not from some arbitrary and unconsidered 'feeling' or pressure from the media.
The media? Forget the media. This case will be decided on the makeup of the jury. The righties here say Zimmerman is innocent and the lefties say he is guilty. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a fair trial. Even in a relatively red part of Florida. Or especially in a red part of Florida.
Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.
You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.
We lost " legal" a long time ago. The bleeding hearts just want a pound of flesh.
I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.
I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.
And I will be awaiting your link to them.
I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.
And I will be awaiting your link to them.
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.
And I will be awaiting your link to them.
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
Yeah, and most of the jurors in Orlando will listen to FAUX and excuse Zimmerman before evidence is even presented. That's not the media's fault, it is the fault of stupid people.You are right, that is a different story. Did you know that the golden rule argument cannot be used in court? You cannot ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, because you are then asking them to NOT be objective in their deliberations, which we hope they will be in this case and the verdict will evolve from the facts and the evidence presented, not from some arbitrary and unconsidered 'feeling' or pressure from the media.
The media? Forget the media. This case will be decided on the makeup of the jury. The righties here say Zimmerman is innocent and the lefties say he is guilty. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a fair trial. Even in a relatively red part of Florida. Or especially in a red part of Florida.
What is "said" by the media affects the jury pool.
And I will be awaiting your link to them.
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
Where's the link ?
And I will be awaiting your link to them.
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter
I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.
You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.
Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.
I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.
You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter
That's not a statute. It's a blog
Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter
That's not a statute. It's a blog
Not sure if serious...but, there was a case not long ago where some idiot stole some car radios and the guy he stole them from ran him down and killed him and got off under the stand your ground law.
You may think death is acceptable for theft but I don't.
You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter
That's not a statute. It's a blog
I have found about five sites mentioning that case. If you had looked up cases dropped due to the law, like I asked, you would know this.
It may be a blog, but it described the outcome precisely. Feel free to keep your head in the sand.You have not posted those statutes. You made an assertion, so you need to back it up.
FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter
That is not a legal opinion written by a judge, it is a blog. It also, like all of your posts to this point, contains no links to any statutes.
You have made an assertion that certain statutes exist and are pertinent in this case. If you are going to make such an assertion, then it is encumbant upon you to provide those statutes and/or case law. You have not done that.
Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.
That's not a statute. It's a blog
So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?
