When GZ got out of his car to the incident was less than 300 feet. There were town homes on the left and right and it was testified that TM stated he made it almost home. TMs home was about 450 feet from GZ's car. That means TM went back to confront GZ. This happened about ten minutes from my home, I have been to this area and looked for myself where the truck was, where TM lived, and where the confrontation occurred. If this kid felt threatened he would have gone directly home. By the time GZ got out of his car while talking with 911, the kid had a big lead on GZ.
I don't recall you ever "defeating" anyone in a debate. SYG legislation does not say you have to be in danger. It says you have to have reasonable belief that you are in danger. Interesting that you claim I was way out of line by saying referring to you as a conservative, then in the same post you ramble about "the false narrative liberals were pushing"...
My post that started this BS was about SYG being poor legislation. The result of this legislation is that Martin had no obligation to run home. Would he have been wise to do so? Absolutely. Are teenage boys known for their wisdom? Absolutely not. Did Martin do anything illegal? Not according to SYG, which is what makes that legislation stupid. - - - Updated - - - The only person tried in court was Martin. It's fairly clear the prosecutor wasn't interested in prosecuting Zimmerman.
You know the statute.... Imminent danger or great bodily harm. And you still have to convince the police and DA that this was the case. If TM had the gun and he shot GZ for following him, do you think he could convince the DA that his life was in imminent danger?
More complete crockery made up from an ill understanding of what the law is regarding self defense. SYG simply means you don't have to run away if you have a right to be there nothing more nothing less. It doesn't evoke a right to self defense. You have no logical argument here. On the other hand states define a persons right to self defense in separate statutes. For example, Florida's law defines all the silly things you are projecting to apply to SYG under it's statutes about self defense, then goes on to say that a person has no duty to retreat (SYG) if they are using force or deadly force in accordance with the laws regarding self defense. The antigun shrills don't even understand it isn't SYG they should be arguing against but the very laws you are quoting about allowing self defense. Your illogical argument reminds me of the cry and hue by antigun nuts about how allowing citizens to carry guns would cause the streets to run with blood....welp that just ain't happened.....eh? SYG has a singular definition, you don't have to run away if you have a right to be there as a law abiding citizen. Self defense laws define reasonable beliefs and imminent threats of death or great bodily harm. You want to argue SYG discuss the merits of running away verses not running. You want to discuss why someone used force or deadly force and reasonable beliefs and intents discuss self defense. Reading comprehension 101 is still not evident from the antigun, race baiters as of yet. - - - Updated - - - Self defense 101 eh?
More specifically, "reasonable belief" of either. I don't recall having that obligation. Again with the "life in imminent danger" BS? That's starting to look like an intentional strawman. The legislation for self defense does not require "life in imminent danger". Do I believe a teenager who was walking home from a store at night - where he had every right to be - could convince a DA that some dude who was following him home was a threat? Sure, especially if the guy who got shot was a prescription drug abuser with a police record... Of course, the chances are lessened somewhat given that Martin is black, even though Zimmerman had a history of racist activity.
It isn't my fault you do not pay attention. SYG did not apply to Martin....you lose. - - - Updated - - - So you blame the prosecution? LOL! They prosecuted a case that should have never went to court. What do you expect?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. "a person has no duty to retreat (SYG) if they are using force or deadly force in accordance with the laws regarding self defense." That's exactly what I've been saying... and the laws regarding self defense say that you can act in self defense if you have reasonable belief of another's intent to commit a forcible felony.
I point out that you're a conservative (which is correct), and somehow I'm the one not paying attention? Another unfounded statement. Your opinion has no bearing on reality. Your post reminds me of that saying "debating some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon will just knock the pieces over, defecate on the board, and strut around like he's proven something." Yup, a guy follows a teenager around at night, the teen "stands his ground" legally, the guy shoots the teen dead, and it should never go to court... Your post is moronic. Thanks for being consistent.
Reading comprehension 101...SYG, you don't have to run away, force or deadly force...self defense. Argue against one or the other, they are not the same just because they are mentioned in the same statute. You originally stated Mixing SYG with self defense and saying one made no sense at all when in reality SYG does not justify self defense at all eh?
Self defense laws say you can use force (even lethal force) if you reasonably believe that someone intends to forcibly commit a felony. SYG says you do not have a duty to retreat and avoid such a confrontation. If Martin had continued home, there would have been no confrontation. As a result of SYG, he was not required to. SYG is poor legislation. Does that clarify my position for you? ...and you claim I'm the one with reading comprehension issues...
Well I have won many, many debates and the Zimmerman case is just one topic of victory for me. Jealous much? Still repeating the false narrative I see....sad.
Listen, I teach CCW classes and the main objective of the course is to educate Floridas use of lethal force laws and SYG laws. I bring in attorneys that this is their specialty. I know about this law and how it is practically applied in Florida courts. This is my livelihood. I present cases that people have lost because they could not articulate to police the reason that they felt their life was in danger. We teach people how to speak to police immediately following a self defense use of a firearm. 776.012 (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. 776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. Believe me, the DA wants to hear how you sincerely believed that you were going to die if you didn't use deadly force. Anything less and you WILL find yourself in front of a judge, exploited by the media and SYG haters, spending big money on lawyers, and possible death threats.
unfortunately we heard from the jury afterwords and they thought he was guilty, just thought the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt... cause of course the state overcharged, should of went for manslaughter from his alleged domestic disputes, it's sounding like z is a ticking timebomb, sadly I do not think we have heard the last from him, probably be another Crystal ManGum or OJ .
Exactly what you were arguing about...Thank you for admitting that, has nothing to do with SYG Now you are catching on....no mention of imminent threat, reasonable belief...etc. SYG applies to law abiding citizens going about their business and takes away the ability of an unscrupulous antigun nut in a position of power to prosecute a citizen just because they didn't run away. Correct. Treyvon should have continued on home and if he had not committed a criminal act he probably would have been able to do so. Correct and Zimmerman would not have been able to invoke self defense laws (not stand your ground) if Martin would have went his merry way SYG is perfectly legitimate law that removes someone else's subjective opinion about running or staying from the decision process and places the burden of proof on the objective opinion of the person applying use of force laws. No it shows a lack of comprehension about justify ones self defense decisions against a tactical decision of whether to run or stay. still do
If it does not, does that mean I am not allowed to evade? LOL Seriously, keep going. I have no need, the other posters have already nailed you to the cross.
If you, me, or anyone else ever shoots someone because they are being followed you had better be prepared to explain yourself to a Grand Jury, because you will have to. If you cannot convince the Grand Jury that it was a good shoot, you will be imprisoned for a long time. However if GZ had approached TM with his fists balled up and saying he was going to harm TM, then yeah, TM would have ok (in my opinion) to shoot GZ, fearing for his life or safety. But, that didn't happen did it? TM approached GZ and said something to the effect of "You got a problem?" and "You got one now, you gonna die tonight" while physically striking GZ with the sidewalk, which is why GZ was cleared to shoot TM. Keep your hands to yourself.
Going back and re-reading our portion of the thread, I didn't mean to claim that the operator asked GZ to follow TM but "Which way is he running?" and that was my mistake and should have either taken the time to properly address your question or waited until I had more time to consider how to word my response. A mistake I will try not to make again any time soon, my apologies for that. Regardless, physical violence is never an acceptable response to being "looked at" or followed, ever. However shooting to kill is always an acceptable response to being physically attacked, with a sidewalk or anything else. Transcript of the conversation between the 911 operator and GZ , in case you are interested. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098
Because TM was 11 years old? He was as big as any man and could certainly carry a man's weight in a fight. So do you think TM was a 90lb kid? - - - Updated - - - TM had a hold of GZ's head smashing his head into the sidewalk, that is not a fist fight. At any rate, people die from fist fights as a matter of routine and here you are acting like it's "no big deal".
I have been chased by dogs while walking my own dog and had my gun on me, as I always do, yet my reaction was to run sometimes, easily outdistancing breeds with short legs, like one English Bulldog whose name is apparently "ZeldaNooooo" who has chased us twice, poor thing sounds like it was going to die after chasing us one whole block. Other times there was no chance to run and I had to dismount my bicycle and use it as a shield between my dog and a pit once and a very excited border collie another time. Armed all the time, yet I haven't had to shoot anything so far. Just because you are being chased or followed does not mean you can shoot the chaser, whether it is man or beast, without being liable for your actions. If TM had a gun and shot GZ because GZ was punching or kicking TM, then yes, the NRA would be on board with TM, regardless of the color of anyone's skin. I wonder why you and other folks think that 2A supporters are racists? Care to explain?
You claiming to have won something doesn't have anything to do with reality. Some pigeons never learn.
