When you have just killed someone, there will be an investigation and you better have a believable story that is consistent with forensics and physical evidence to prove that you had reason to believe you were about to die if you didn't use lethal force. We spend a great deal of time teaching our CCW students about the use of lethal force. Prosecutors love to beat the SYG law.
So now you agree that "reasonable" subjective belief is all that's required... Do you believe that a teenager being followed around at night by an unknown adult could have a reasonable fear for their own safety?
You leave out the most important part in your quote, specifically about Florida law, this is understandable since it doesn't support you comments on SYG. "Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Floridas Stand Your Ground Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." Your premise is again just flat wrong. SYG is not a license to use force against another. It requires proof of a reasonable belief that an imminent threat is present. Reading comprehension 101 says imminent commission is very important, not reasonable belief. Fear for your life because someone is following you just doesn't seem to reach your stretch....eh?
Your link defines the qualifying conditions for "reasonable fear". Which condition did Zimmerman fulfill?
More clarity from the same statute mentioned Note the law says "was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm....seems that reasonable belief is tied to a standard...to prevent death or great bodily harm. SYG in the Martin case was initiated by race baiters and the news media to incite the uninformed.
Did you even read what you posted? Do you think it would be rational for a teenager being followed home at night by a stranger to assume the guy is intending to sell him girl scout cookies?! If Martin had shot Zimmerman, you'd be celebrating this as a perfect example of self defense... Unless race is an issue. - - - Updated - - - You believe it is unreasonable for a teenager to assume someone following them home at night intends them harm?
According to your link? Yes. Reasonable fear was defined. I guess my BS is more truthful than your misunderstanding of the law. I can't say whether or not Zimmerman met any conditions to cause a "reasonable fear", but it couldn't be proven in court. Maybe Holder and the DA should have called you for help.
As for the definition of what is "reasonable": http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, had a right to be where he was, and it is not unreasonable to assume a strange man following a teenager home at night intends to commit a felony (eg: home invasion, felony assault, rape, etc) through the use of force.
OK. Where is your proof that Zimmerman threatened Martin or gave him a reason to use lethal force? How does Zimmerman's following Martin constitute a reason from your link to justify a "reasonable fear"? Are scaredy cats more justified than brave people to defend themselves? You're concentrating on fear and ignoring REASONable.
SYG was not used in the Zimmerman case. How in the world do you not know that? Seriously. SYG? You are being illogical or dishonest. Which is it?
Are you pretending to not know that TM was using the sidewalk to strike GZ in the head, while saying "You're gonna die tonight"? I think you are lying, but I could be wrong, you could just not know anything. Time will tell. The Duke doesn't take to liars very well. Shame on you for using his picture as your avatar.
TM was fine and within the law, until he threw the first punch. Then he was in the wrong, and just so happened to die for it. Lesson to others, don't punch people with guns. Simple isn't it?
You are being obtuse, but just in case your question is truly born out of ignorance, I'll answer it for you so you don't embarrass yourself in the future. GZ looked for TM after 911 operator asked for TM's location. That was when TM made it all the way to his Dad's house and then went looking for GZ again.
Oh, so Zimmerman didn't need to kill Martin. Well, we already knew that. He also didn't nee to follow him, and the 911 operator never told him to follow him.
Real life aint a movie. This kinda stuff is part of the problem with the Zimmerman case. Lots of conservatives with little gun knowledge of responsible firearm ownership jumped on the bad wagon before the facts were in. It was a very weak self defense case and makes gun owners look bad. Z should have stayed in his truck, a responsible gun owner and a responsible HOA securtiy guy would have. Z is damn lucky not to be in jail.
Yes he did, yes he did, and yes they did. How is it that you don't know any of this? Did you watch the trial at all?
Looks like a pretty solid case to me. Even the Dept of Justice, with the full weight of all their resources could not find a crack in it. So how in the world does someone on the internet named "mak2" see something that Eric Holder missed? I hope you have to fortitude to answer the question, I really want to know.
Not find a crack in it? There was simply not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, mainly becaue the other witness is dead. I said he was lucky not to be in prison, and he is.
