I dont get it

So according to the Florida law, I can go around, carrying a gun, and bully people. And if the people I bully, turn around and sock me in the head, as long as I am bleeding, that gives me the right to shoot them. And if the event is unwitnessed (as it was in the Zimmerman case), then it is impossible to prove that I didn't "fear for my life." So I get off Scott free. Nice.

 

Yeah, that just about sums it up. Stupid behavior by a young man leads to his life being tragically cut short.

 

There is endemic 'HPD' among young Black men. That is the number one reason they are killing each other off by the dozens every week in the US not to mention the rest of the world. One of the manifestations of 'HPD' is the individual has no concept or understanding of what 'consequence for one's actions' means.
T was a prime example. He actually believed he could go up to a stranger and 'suck-punch' him then when George went down T could climb aboard and continue to commit felony assault on George and T would suffer no consequence. Same with the "professional thief" who figured he could trespass on some ones property at two in the morning and when told to "freeze" by the property owner could turn and move his hand to his waist band. Another example of not comprehending the fact that a serious consequence could result. Same thing every time a young Black man commits a crime. What's the first thing they say after being caught? "I wasn't thinking". 'Not thinking' means what? It means "I wasn't thinking about the possible consequence of my action/s". The prisons are full of young Black men who "weren't thinking". 'HPD'.

 

Umm no. That is not according to Fla law at all. You didnt define what you mean by bully. Is it following someone? asking them what they are doing? grabbing them and assaulting them? what?

 

any of the above would be covered by Florida law , which says that if i get into a fight with someone (for whatever reason), and at some point during the fight, I fear for my life, i have the right to shoot that person. So that means that if I get into a bar fight with someone, and things aren't going my way, I can shoot them. That's what the law says.

that's why this has nothing to do with race. This could have easily happened between two white people who were having an argument that turned physical. This is about a stupid law.

 

of course it has nothing to do with race. Whichever person decided to become subhuman and lays their hands on someone else first in a violent manner should fully expect to be shot. If you lay your hands on someone else first in a violent manner and then kill that person you are a murderer. Its pretty simple.

 

Sure it's the case in Florida. How is this not the case here ? Got an explanation for that ?

 

You don't have to go searching for the statute. I've posted it 100 times. I know it very well. ANd your vague expression about starting a fight doesn't match up to it. Starting a fight could mean quite a few different things from giving someone a dirty look, to mouthing some nasty words, to throwing a punch. Simple fact is if someone physically attacks you, by which great bodily harm would be imminent to you (within seconds), you can legally exert force (lethal as well) to defend yourself, as well it should be.
And just because someone may start something and call you nasty names, or insult you, that doesn't give you the right to physically attack them. If you do then yes, you could be shot.

 

The law only conditions you have fear of bodily harm. If someone pulls back their jacket and you see a gun or if he lifts his arms, you could shoot him and then argue that he threatened you and you feared for your life. The law does not require him to attack you.


​

 

FALSE! I know this is the line that Sharpton & Jackson and the other race hustlers on MSNBC are pushing , but it just is not so. You cannot shoot somebody unless you are doing it in self-defense. If someone showed you a gun in a holster, that's not an attack which could warrant self-defense. If in the course of a heated argument, they started removing that gun from that holster, then I would say that would constitute a reason for self-defense, as many police have been exonerated from blame for shooting someone under THAT condition. Likewise, they have been convicted and blamed of shooting someone too soon.

If you were in a heated argument with someone and they reached for a gun, when are you going to shoot them ? AFTER they've shot you ? As attorney West correctly asked in the Zimmerman trial,, when is it OK to use deadly force ? Do you have to wait until you're dead ?

 

"...if the event is unwitnessed (as it was in the Zimmerman case), then it is impossible to prove that I didn't "fear for my life." So I get off Scott free. Nice."

Taxcutter says:
The legal system has worked that way for a long, long time.

 

i've really had it with this childish argument. it's like saying that murder is legal if you don't get caught or that the police can plant drugs on you and arrest you for possession. of course these possibilities exist. trying to "get over" is a part of the human condition. all that the stand your ground laws do is make it so that you don't have to prove that there was no other way to escape "death or great bodily harm" than to apply lethal force. if there is no one to witness the event, this could be nearly impossible and could result in many needless trials of men who are guilty of nothing more than trying to protect themselves. after all, why should i be forced to spend months of my life and endless legal fees for merely trying to keep breathing? y'all act as if this was a license to kill, when it is nothing more than an extension of our natural right to self-defense that keeps an innocent man from bankrupting himself with legal fees. can it be abused? of course it can, but the likelihood of that happening is no greater than with any other law.

the only reason a stink is being made of it is to further chain us to the "all-powerful" state, to make us even more dependent on authority. this is nothing more than an opportunity for the rabid statists to chip away at the independence of the individual, in favor of placing all power within the collective.

 

The fallacy you've woven here is fitting for your screen name. You have failed to illustrate where George Zimmerman "bullied" Trayvon Martin or where Florida law even says such "bullying" is acceptable. But never let the facts get in the way of a good victim crusade, eh? Predictably trite and cynical post.

 

Ah, okay. I see it now. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

actually i may have quoted the wrong post.... or maybe not. you posit that the aggressor may be covered by self-defense, but this is not the intent of the law. it is up to judge and jury to decide the facts in such cases, whether you like it or not. if we legislate by considering only the worst case scenario, we become slaves to the letter of the law and those that control it.

the intent of any law does not always match its outcome on every occasion, but this in merely human nature. some legislation, like that leading to the welfare state, was well intentioned but have been twisted by political animals and special interest groups into a useless and destructive force in our society. others, such as that surrounding our inherent right to defend ourselves, are being attacked simply because of the flaws in human character. it seems curious that so many should be upset at these unintentional holes in the law, yet never blink an eye at the rampant and intentional corruption of bureaucrats.

 

always wait until the final revision. my days are long and i sometimes take a while to get it all out correctly. best to wait 5 to 10 minutes after a post of mine before responding. yes, i'm an old fart and sometimes the words don't come out of my brain on the first try.

 

Florida law says all I need to do to fear for my life. It doesn't have to be bullying. I could be starting a fight for ANY reason. Florida law says as long as I am "afraid" I can start shooting.

 

You are correct, you don't get it. Try looking at the facts of this case instead of the myth and fantasy created by the media and trayvonites and there is a chance you will understand. SO far you are wrong and only repeat lies.