If you defend Zimmerman...

[ek3]

...then you defend a license to murder.

All you have to do (in Florida) to get away with murder is stalk someone, start a confrontation, and if they defend themselves in any way, you can kill them in "self defense."

Ok, let's put this rule to work.

Bully at school sees skinny kid walking home.
Bully decides to follow skinny kid.
Skinny kid runs, bully chases him down.
Bully corners Skinny kid and pushes him.
Skinny kid swings back.
Bully shoots skinny kid dead.
Bully gets off free for "self defense."

-------------------------------------------------------------

You hate your boss
But you've learrned a trick from George Zimmerman's case.
So you stalk your boss after hours when he's vulnerable, confront him in a violent manner then shoot him.
Your boss did punch you once, so you get off in "self defense"


This is a license to kill, and a very easy way to plot murder and get away with it.

Pursue ---> Start conflict ----> if person fights back ---> MURDER THEM! ---> claim "self defense" ---> get off FREE!

[watertoy]

Zimmerman kept a distance and spoke to him in case there was a knife.

Zimmerman walked away and got tackled and punched.

[lee4]

not necessarily, as courts haven't ruled on his case creating an interpretation of the law by which precedent may be created.

basically, courts have to say the law applies here before we can have this argument.

[Bowyermania]

...then you defend a license to murder.

All you have to do (in Florida) to get away with murder is stalk someone, start a confrontation, and if they defend themselves in any way, you can kill them in "self defense."

Ok, let's put this rule to work.

Bully at school sees skinny kid walking home.
Bully decides to follow skinny kid.
Skinny kid runs, bully chases him down.
Bully corners Skinny kid and pushes him.
Skinny kid swings back.
Bully shoots skinny kid dead.
Bully gets off free for "self defense."

-------------------------------------------------------------

You hate your boss
But you've learrned a trick from George Zimmerman's case.
So you stalk your boss after hours when he's vulnerable, confront him in a violent manner then shoot him.
Your boss did punch you once, so you get off in "self defense"


This is a license to kill, and a very easy way to plot murder and get away with it.

Pursue ---> Start conflict ----> if person fights back ---> MURDER THEM! ---> claim "self defense" ---> get off FREE!

You have no clue if those events actually occurred. There are new witnesses and information that are disputing that narrative. I want to hear all the facts before I call this man a cold blooded murderer. I already am starting to question the medias portrayal of this as a racist hate crime based on mor background information about Zimmerman. I have yet to pass judgement.

[DMR4494]

Zimmerman kept a distance and spoke to him in case there was a knife.

Zimmerman walked away and got tackled and punched.

And you believe that because the witnesses said so? They were most likely his friends just trying to keep him out of jail. It was a gated neighbor hood after all.

[DennisR1977]

Seriously, stop making **** up. You don't know Zimmerman pushed him. Why do you keep making this assumption? What if Martin struck the first blow? Is it illegal to follow someone? Does Martin have a restraining order against Zimmerman?

...then you defend a license to murder.

All you have to do (in Florida) to get away with murder is stalk someone, start a confrontation, and if they defend themselves in any way, you can kill them in "self defense."

Ok, let's put this rule to work.

Bully at school sees skinny kid walking home.
Bully decides to follow skinny kid.
Skinny kid runs, bully chases him down.
Bully corners Skinny kid and pushes him.
Skinny kid swings back.
Bully shoots skinny kid dead.
Bully gets off free for "self defense."

-------------------------------------------------------------

You hate your boss
But you've learrned a trick from George Zimmerman's case.
So you stalk your boss after hours when he's vulnerable, confront him in a violent manner then shoot him.
Your boss did punch you once, so you get off in "self defense"


This is a license to kill, and a very easy way to plot murder and get away with it.

Pursue ---> Start conflict ----> if person fights back ---> MURDER THEM! ---> claim "self defense" ---> get off FREE!

[megabrahh]

All you have to do (in Florida) to get away with murder is stalk someone, start a confrontation, and if they defend themselves in any way, you can kill them in "self defense."

That's not how that law works. You're not allowed to instigate a hostile situation and then have free pass to kill the person if they defend themselves.

[ImproperOne]

...then you defend a license to murder.

All you have to do (in Florida) to get away with murder is stalk someone, start a confrontation, and if they defend themselves in any way, you can kill them in "self defense."

Ok, let's put this rule to work.

Bully at school sees skinny kid walking home.
Bully decides to follow skinny kid.
Skinny kid runs, bully chases him down.
Bully corners Skinny kid and pushes him.
Skinny kid swings back.
Bully shoots skinny kid dead.
Bully gets off free for "self defense."

-------------------------------------------------------------

You hate your boss
But you've learrned a trick from George Zimmerman's case.
So you stalk your boss after hours when he's vulnerable, confront him in a violent manner then shoot him.
Your boss did punch you once, so you get off in "self defense"


This is a license to kill, and a very easy way to plot murder and get away with it.

Pursue ---> Start conflict ----> if person fights back ---> MURDER THEM! ---> claim "self defense" ---> get off FREE!

'tis the christian way.

He was walking in a neighbourhood and was black, he had to be guilty of something, they all are, aren't they?

Ask scoundrel how that works, all christians are white in his world.

[hooked4life]

That's not how that law works. You're not allowed to instigate a hostile situation and then have free pass to kill the person if they defend themselves.

Sort of is how the law ends up working though. Just so long as there aren't witnesses all you need to do is make sure you kill the other person.

Your roommate slaughters you in your sleep, police come, roommates says "yeah, I killed him - it was self defense" - BOOM roommate is fine.

[Bowyermania]

Sort of is how the law ends up working though. Just so long as there aren't witnesses all you need to do is make sure you kill the other person.

Your roommate slaughters you in your sleep, police come, roommates says "yeah, I killed him - it was self defense" - BOOM roommate is fine.

Well except you know forensic evidence which shows there was no sign of a struggle or injuries to your roommate.

[ImproperOne]

That's not how that law works. You're not allowed to instigate a hostile situation and then have free pass to kill the person if they defend themselves.

Actually, that is EXACTLY how Florida self defense/castle doctrine/no duty to retreat laws work, you can instigate a fight and once you start losing it you can pull your gun and shoot to kill. All you have to say is that you were fearing for severe physical damage if you had not shot him.

I am not ****ting you, that is the law in Florida. (if you are white, chances are you won't get aways with obeying the law if you are black)

[Bowyermania]

Actually, that is EXACTLY how Florida self defense/castle doctrine/no duty to retreat laws work, you can instigate a fight and once you start losing it you can pull your gun and shoot to kill. All you have to say is that you were fearing for severe physical damage if you had not shot him.

I am not ****ting you, that is the law in Florida. (if you are white, chances are you won't get aways with obeying the law if you are black)

You are misinterpreting the law out of either ignorance or to simply support your argument. The law does not protect the aggressor or individual who initiated the altercation.

[ImproperOne]

You are misinterpreting the law out of either ignorance or to simply support your argument. The law does not protect the aggressor or individual who initiated the altercation.

I am most certainly not the law has been used to determine whether Zimmerman had the right to shoot regardless of anything and the police investigation stopped there.

He was in a fight and pulled his gun, that was all and all that is needed according to florida law.

his OWN determination of him being in fear of his life made deadly violoence just.

Yeah, i see nothing wrong with that, the opposite side is not talking so it must be right...

****ing south should secede, filled with stupid to the brim.

[Penile_Dementia]

If the case happened as you described it, Zimmerman committed murder. This scenario seems very possible. If it is NOT, and Zimmerman did not instigate violence and was attacked, he did not. This scenario is also possible. Defense of him in this case, would not be as you describe. Thus the problem with this thread you're ascribing a strawman argument; you're claiming that people are defending Zimmerman in the case of the scenario as you described it. Which at least most of those arguing for skepticism and/or Zimmerman's side, is WRONG.

[megabrahh]

Actually, that is EXACTLY how Florida self defense/castle doctrine/no duty to retreat laws work, you can instigate a fight and once you start losing it you can pull your gun and shoot to kill. All you have to say is that you were fearing for severe physical damage if you had not shot him.

I am not ****ting you, that is the law in Florida. (if you are white, chances are you won't get aways with obeying the law if you are black)

But how the phuck does that work??

That would mean I could literally walk around in Florida, pick a fight with someone I wanted to kill, pretend like I was getting my ass kicked and fearing for my survival, then legally be allowed to shoot the twat. Rinse and repeat for anyone I want!

[hooked4life]

Actually, that is EXACTLY how Florida self defense/castle doctrine/no duty to retreat laws work, you can instigate a fight and once you start losing it you can pull your gun and shoot to kill. All you have to say is that you were fearing for severe physical damage if you had not shot him.

I am not ****ting you, that is the law in Florida. (if you are white, chances are you won't get aways with obeying the law if you are black)

No no, it doesn't apply to you if you started it. The problem is if you kill the other person the chances of being able to show you started it go way down.

[ImproperOne]

But how the phuck does that work??

That would mean I could literally walk around in Florida, pick a fight with someone I wanted to kill, pretend like I was getting my ass kicked and fearing for my survival, then legally be allowed to shoot the twat. Rinse and repeat for anyone I want!

YES! It doesn't take into account who instigated it, that is the ****ing problem.

Under the current law i don't see how he COULD be convicted of any wrong doings and neither can three case lawyers i've had this discussion with.

Florida really is that ****ed up.

[Bowyermania]

But how the phuck does that work??

That would mean I could literally walk around in Florida, pick a fight with someone I wanted to kill, pretend like I was getting my ass kicked and fearing for my survival, then legally be allowed to shoot the twat. Rinse and repeat for anyone I want!

Which. Not what the law provides for. The media and posters like him are simply pushing an anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment agenda as usual.

[hooked4life]

yes! It doesn't take into account who instigated it, that is the ****ing problem.

Under the current law i don't see how he could be convicted of any wrong doings and neither can three case lawyers i've had this discussion with.

Florida really is that ****ed up.

yes it does take into account who started it!

the trouble is NOT that aspect of the law (which FL does have) but rather the burden of proof. you can claim self defense and the state has to overcome it, instead of you having to show it was self defense.

that's the problem - kill the other party and it becomes pretty damn hard (in a lot of cases) to show who started it and show that you were not acting in self defense.

[flairon]

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red

/thread.

[ImproperOne]

No no, it doesn't apply to you if you started it. The problem is if you kill the other person the chances of being able to show you started it go way down.

it doesn't matter who started it, the castle doctrine/no duty to retreat means you can start it and still kill him in self defense if you are in fear of your own well being.

THAT is why Zimmerman was let go with his gun delievered to him and without as much as a talking to.

You should really read up on it, i know how you feel, it can't be like that... then i read up on it and IT IS LIKE THAT.

I can start wailing on you for no reason and if you get the upper hand i can shoot you and claim that i feared for my life, since it's a clear case of self defence then, i won't even lose my CC licence.

[hooked4life]

it doesn't matter who started it, the castle doctrine/no duty to retreat means you can start it and still kill him in self defense if you are in fear of your own well being.

THAT is why Zimmerman was let go with his gun delievered to him and without as much as a talking to.

You should really read up on it, i know how you feel, it can't be like that... then i read up on it and IT IS LIKE THAT.

I can start wailing on you for no reason and if you get the upper hand i can shoot you and claim that i feared for my life, since it's a clear case of self defence then, i won't even lose my CC licence.

there is another provision in the FL law that says if you start it you need to try and get away, etc. etc. before resorting to deadly force.

[ImproperOne]

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman



/thread.

the eye witness that changed his story five times during one interview.

yeah, this is clear as day, the rest of the witnesses that were coerced into statements that matters not at all however.

Why is that though, couldn't be that you are a white supremacist and known as one too`?

[ImproperOne]

there is another provision in the FL law that says if you start it you need to try and get away, etc. etc. before resorting to deadly force.

Not under castle doctrine, this was in his neighbourhood, he had no duty to retreat..

Can't you read or are you stupid, i gave you all the words you needed to do a search and you just ignored all of them?

In short, you are wrong.

[Bowyermania]

the eye witness that changed his story five times during one interview.

yeah, this is clear as day, the rest of the witnesses that were coerced into statements that matters not at all however.

Why is that though, couldn't be that you are a white supremacist and known as one too`?

A Latino white supremacist who attends a predominantly black church, mentors young black boys in his free time, and has several black family members. Interesting.

A

[hooked4life]

Not under castle doctrine, this was in his neighbourhood, he had no duty to retreat..

Can't you read or are you stupid, i gave you all the words you needed to do a search and you just ignored all of them?

In short, you are wrong.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0776/0776.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

in short you need to read the whole section - though i doubt you read any of it.

- and negged.

[brighamw]

If you defend Zimmerman...


...then you defend American principles of "innocent until proven guitly" and "due process..."

Fixed that for ya

[hooked4life]

Fixed that for ya

No, you're defending a retarded law that makes getting away with murder insanely easy.

[BEATINGU]

But how the phuck does that work??

That would mean I could literally walk around in Florida, pick a fight with someone I wanted to kill, pretend like I was getting my ass kicked and fearing for my survival, then legally be allowed to shoot the twat. Rinse and repeat for anyone I want!

If someone get's killed as a result of a felony you're committing you'd get charged with murder

If the police can prove that you had malice aforethought you can get charged with murder

In the United States our criminal system believes that people need to have a "guilty mind" to get charged with a crime like murder

If you're walking around purposely picking fights with people so that you can shoot them you'd be guilty of murder

There's no evidence that George Zimmerman purposely picked a fight with the guy because he wanted to shoot him

[ImproperOne]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0776/0776.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

- and negged.

LOL, negged, well that is fine, however isn't it determined by Z what the force was and regardless of what it was, since there are no other winesses before the shot, isn't his story the only one.

I like how you negged me i really do, for what i might ask though since your quote doesn't add **** to this.

perhaps you are just unusually stupid?