or freakin Martin could have stayed in his dad's place once he got there, instead of going out looking for trouble. Martin was a thug and a punk. Too bad yer boy lost in court.
Once again, should a teenager being followed home at night by an unknown stranger assume that stranger intends to sell them girl scout cookies?
Do you not find it reasonable to beleive that a teenager being followed home at night by a stranger has a reason to be concerned for their safety, or do you believe SYG should only apply to folks using firearms? You are being illogical or dishonest. Which is it? - - - Updated - - - That would almost make sense, if you suffered from enough confirmation bias to ignore the fact that SYG indicates he could use force to defend himself against a perceived threat (like a stranger following him home at night). - - - Updated - - - I didn't realize going to the local store to purchase snacks was "going out looking for trouble". I do agree that Martin was the only one actually put on trial though - even after having received the death penalty.
And when you were being followed, did you believe your follwers might have had malicious intent? The fact that you chose not to defend yourself has nothing to do with this. In other words, if Martin had used a firearm to defend himself, he would be a NRA hero (if the NRA ever supported black folks defending themselves).
Martin could assume whatever he wants, but he can't attack someone following him because he is afraid. Assault is not justified because someone is 17 and afraid of the dark. You haven't told us what Zimmerman did to deserve to be attacked. Get that crystal ball out or make something up like usual.
If someone followed you teenage kid home at night, would it not occur to you that the person likely had malicious intent? Would you not be tempted to confront your kid's pursuer? Would this be because you're "afraid of the dark", or because there is no good reason for a stranger to follow kids around at night and refuse to provide any explanation when asked what the problem is?
I am certain a fellow yelling "I am going to take a (*)(*)(*)(*) after I (*)(*)(*)(*) up this (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ass (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s from California" (when it is only you, your brother, and this guy on the entire street) is a statement of ill intent. The answer? Evade and handle it from there. Your interpretation of SYG is merely pathetic.
Are you saying SYG requires you to "evade"? You have yet to provide an alternative interpretation... just sayin'.
That followed by arguing over the word reasonable, then arguing or the word reason then arguing over the letters reas then arguing over the letter r.
By "confront", do you mean pound their head on the sidewalk? No. That's where you call the police and let them sort it out. If they assault or try to kidnap my kid, then I put a bullet in their head.
It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to say that people shooting each other when they believe they are at risk is ok, but fighting under those same circumstances is wrong... Please point out where in SYG legislation it indicates you have an obligation to call the police (or wait for the assault/kidnapping to occur) prior to taking action.
Was TM's life in imminent danger that he had to bash Zims head into the sidewalk in self protection. If that were true, once Zim was down and on his back, Zim was no longer an imminent threat. Zim had been on the phone with 911. You recall anyone with ill intent call 911 first?
I agree, and the way SYG is written, it allows people to attack someone that they "reasonably believe" intends to commit a forcible felony against them. That is why the post I originally made (the one that whipped up a frenzy of conservative responses) indicated that SYG makes no sense.
Martin had no reason to defend himself. He was not in danger and had no reason to attack George in self defense. He was angry because George looked at him. What a nut job he was.
If you're wrestling with someone, are they no longer a threat because you have them (still fighting) on the ground? The issue isn't whether Zimmerman had ill intent. The issue is whether Martin could reasonably believe Zimmerman had ill intent. Are you suggesting Martin should have known Zimmerman had called 911? Perhaps Martin would have known - if Zimmerman had responded when asked what his problem was.
Another conservative who believes that teenagers being followed home at night by total strangers have no reason to feel concerned for their safety? I'm gonna guess you wouldn't make that assertion if it were a black guy following a white teenager home.
Not only do you have to believe that your life is in imminent danger, you have to make investigators believe it too. You account of events better be consistent with physical evidence and forensics.
Zimmerman's testimony and recreation of the events with police... Even the guy who had the most to gain by making himself look good didn't think to claim he actually tried speaking to the teen he tried following home.
I have never claimed to be a conservative. Liberals do not like that I challenge their warped point of view and ultimately end up defeating them in debates......sad. When the defense demonstrated how much time Martin had to get home that destroyed the false narrative liberals were pushing. Martin was in zero danger.
1) You don't have to believe your life is in danger, just that a forcible felony may be imminent. Like felony assault, for example. 2) There is no account of the events (even that provided by Zimmerman) that indicates Martin had any way of knowing why he was being followed home by a random stranger at night. It is not unreasonable for someone in that situation to believe their pursuer has ill intent.
