The problem with your riposte is that doesn't address my comment. The "justice" of a shooting by police where the facts are not yet known is not the concern of this sift. An angry mob outnumbering cops, say, 10 to 1, leaves cops with little option but to defend themselves from being killed. Or do you expect them to let mobs simply kill them?

A mob is not a gaggle of angry but thoughtful/idealistic/rational individuals, it's a "monster" with its own appetites, savage and anonymous. Witness riots by fans of sports teams that have won.

Do angry mobs run into burning buildings? Do they try to pile in to an ambulance while EMTs are attempting to load a stretcher? Then why the approval of fking with police trying to do a job?

The facts surrounding this shooting have yet to come to light.

Ignorance is expecting perfection from any human being, including cops.


>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"

That's bullshit. It doesn't matter if the people here were ignorantly lead to believe a lie about what they were protesting or if they were just plain wrong and supported a radical ideal. We shouldn't do this in America where even the ignorant like yourself are protected. We should support those with differing opinions with a dialog, not brute force. You and those in political office that support your fucked up vision of the world are the reason we're in this in the first place.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"


That's bullshit. It doesn't matter if the people here were ignorantly lead to believe a lie about what they were protesting or if they were just plain wrong and supported a radical ideal. We shouldn't do this in America where even the ignorant like yourself are protected. We should support those with differing opinions with a dialog, not brute force. You and those in political office that support your fucked up vision of the world are the reason we're in this in the first place.

"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"

Chasing after and shooting people in the back shows the mentality of some of those who carry guns for "protection." It isn't about protection, it is about punishment.

Not all concealed carry permit holders are like this. My dad, at age 79, was mugged in his rural Oklahoma front yard. They hit him in the face with a metal object and he went down, but not out. He didn't have his gun on him. His assailants were unarmed, except for the metal object and the threat of violence. I asked him later if he would have shot them, and he said, "probably not." He knows the difference between force and deadly force. He also knows the power of a gun pointed at you.

This guy was probably justified in making the first shot -- he had the element of surprise and the pistols, fake or not, were pointed at innocent people. I contend that as soon as they started running, that was the time to take a protective stance in front of the other patrons and STOP SHOOTING.

Punishment, not protection.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Yogi:
It's not you have to run away or just defend yourself. It's giving people license to defend themselves with Deadly force. I would gladly run away from someone rather than face the nightmares the rest of my life from killing another human being.

You should read up on the stand-your-ground laws, it doesn't say if you feel threatened at any time you're free to kill. There are limits to the use of deadly force and when deadly force is justified without retreat. Look at the Florida law for example:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

The section 776.013 deals with protecting yourself in your home. Without SYG, if you see a woman being raped, I guess you are supposed to call the police and sit by and do nothing. If you try to stop the rape and then the rapist attempts to kill you, then you have to run away so he can finish raping because if you defend yourself and kill him, you can now be charged with homicide. Oh and that woman was being raped because she wasn't legally allowed to defend herself and couldn't outrun her attacker.


BITCH IMMA KILL YOU!

You're right I haven't read up on the laws...however I see the result of them. The result is the police arrest a man who shot and killed a teenager which no one disputes. He is in perfect health, not injured despite his claims of a broken nose and that he was being bashed in the head. He was released because the police believed him to be telling the truth and that this particular law protects him.

So given that, I'd say it's a pretty resounding fucking failure.

EDIT: I'm sorry I must've missed that rape analogy...now I realize I was talking to a complete fucking idiot. You think if we don't have this law women and men can't stop attackers from raping them, you're just a fucking idiot. Like seriously a complete fucking idiot that has never been educated and cannot use common sense. Seriously an amazing Fucking Idiot.

>> ^Yogi:
It's not you have to run away or just defend yourself. It's giving people license to defend themselves with Deadly force. I would gladly run away from someone rather than face the nightmares the rest of my life from killing another human being.


You should read up on the stand-your-ground laws, it doesn't say if you feel threatened at any time you're free to kill. There are limits to the use of deadly force and when deadly force is justified without retreat. Look at the Florida law for example:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

The section 776.013 deals with protecting yourself in your home. Without SYG, if you see a woman being raped, I guess you are supposed to call the police and sit by and do nothing. If you try to stop the rape and then the rapist attempts to kill you, then you have to run away so he can finish raping because if you defend yourself and kill him, you can now be charged with homicide. Oh and that woman was being raped because she wasn't legally allowed to defend herself and couldn't outrun her attacker.

>> ^curiousity:

I support stand your ground laws. If someone attacks me, why should I have to run away instead of defending myself? Of course I'm ignoring whether it is smarter to run away or not, but I definitely wouldn't want to have to prove that I was actively trying to run away and then ended up having to defend myself.
Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, but actively following and pursuing Martin. Of course he is trying to fall back from his seemingly untruthful statements (I haven't followed it close enough) trying to have some defense.


It's not you have to run away or just defend yourself. It's giving people license to defend themselves with Deadly force. I would gladly run away from someone rather than face the nightmares the rest of my life from killing another human being.

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

It is very likely that Zimmerman would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in some other state, but in this particular case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law provides a very clear defense against the charge of manslaughter. I'm not trying to make any comment on whether the law is good or bad. I merely state the fact that the law was in effect at the time of the incident.

"A person ... who is attacked ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself... A person who uses force as permitted ... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actionfor the use of such force..."

That's the law. The general consensus appears to be that Martin and Zimmerman got involved in an altercation. In that altercation, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman, broke his nose, and did some damage to the back of his head. It is going to be VERY hard (legally) to prove that that Zimmerman had no reasonable cause to think he might have experienced "great bodily harm" while Martin was in the process of inflicting "bodily harm". The way I see it, this whole investigation is very much going to come down to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the word "great".

Bill Maher? As usual, he's a total fool and total tool. The only point he ever has is the one on his head, which perfectly fits his dunce cap.

Then we'll have to have a same reward for the capture of anyone that harms Zimmerman.

of course I'm in the Zimmerman camp, over on ATS several eyewitness reports that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, plus arrest records leaked by anon Trayvon not only a drug addict but a convicted rapist, attacked Zimmerman and cut him up pretty bad, Zimmerman was found bloody on the ground.

I've pulled a gun on a tresspasser before but never had to use it thankfully. But I support Zimmerman 100%

Course I also live in a state that has Castle Doctrine or Castle Law on the books, that gives citizens rights to use deadly force not only on house trespass but property if you are threatened.

>> ^Darkhand:


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.
This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.
And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.
Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?
But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.
It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.
Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!


If you don't have any doubts given that the police didn't tox screen Zimmerman, Zimmerman was told not to follow, they had the wrong detective doing the investigation, and witnesses were coming forward weeks AFTER the incident to try to tell their side of it and saying police never investigated. Then I don't think you can call yourself objective.

I personally try to put myself in either person's shoes and decide if I think I would have acted the same way. I can see Trayvon's point of view more easily than I can Zimmerman. If I were a teenager visiting my father and someone in his neighborhood was following me, I would definitely try to run. And if they kept pursuing and had me trapped, you have the choice of letting them do whatever or fighting back. That part is going to vary on what is being said, but I think Zimmerman acted as aggressor there.

Now in Zimmerman's shoes, I don't own a gun, in fact I've never even held one or fired one. However, if I did have a gun, I certainly would not get so close to someone as for them to take my gun from me or prevent me from using my gun if I felt they were "suspicious". I also would not have gotten out of my vehicle to make that even more likely to occur. As for following a teenager, if they looked like a teen in physical appearance I wouldn't push the issue. If it were an adult acting like that, I might be concerned enough to try to keep them in view from a block away or something. I certainly would never have gotten out of my vehicle in either case of a non-injured teen or adult...they obviously don't want you to be near them if they RUN.

The SYG law, which I have quoted the relevant portions in a previous quote does not say that someone is neutralized when they are on their back. Reposting a portion of it:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If Trayvon could reasonably believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm the law clearly says he could use lethal force against Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman was awake throughout and had the ability to draw a gun and shoot, he was not neutralized. Trayvon was within his rights to defend himself by beating Zimmerman to death if he reasonably felt his life was in danger. If Zimmerman said he had a gun, or the gun was detectable through clothing, or brandishing it, that's a clear indicator that Zimmerman had the ability to use lethal force against him.

Martin wasn't texting his girlfriend, he was speaking to her according to her testimony. She says the line went dead after she HEARD them ask questions and then shoving began.

As for stalking, people get restraining orders against stalkers all the time. If it wasn't a presentation of danger, the courts would not hand out these restraining orders against people who do such things.

I don't like labeling myself as liberal or conservative. Perhaps my life experience makes me favor Martin, but I think the presentation of information thus far indicates that in the moment Zimmerman was beyond the "norm" for behavior for an adult non-LEO against another civilian who was young if not underage. That's not even counting the confrontation, he went beyond the scope a normal citizen would prior to it. Whether that was because he "on something", "pissed", "racist", or had some other agenda.....we can't know. I think it's clear evidence of him not thinking acting reasonably or thinking clearly.

And I don't feel that I'm pushing an agenda. I'm applying the language of the law to the scenario, and I feel that Zimmerman violated Martin's rights and was let go because of the law that should have applied first and foremost to Martin who was actively trying to escape Zimmerman by Zimmerman's own admissions on the 911 tapes. The rest of the police screw ups is just fuel to the fire. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman hated blacks at this point, although it will be important once they finally apply the law in some kind of rational way. To determine if this was a hate crime on his part, which will be left up to a jury.

Again, I can absolutely see why people would be upset on this case for a lot of reasons. But by far the most troubling is that it seems like you can put someone on the defensive, and straight up murder them as soon as they have lost all other options of flight and turn to fight. Not seeing that aspect of it, is by far the most troubling "blindness"/willful ignorance of the people coming out on the side of Zimmerman. Without evidence to show that Trayvon had a chance for escape, Zimmerman is 100% wrong in the wording of the law under 776.041 as the aggressor. If we can't apply the law by it's language, it's a useless law.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

that was awesome @Porksandwich!
totally agree.
the whole situation could have been avoided if zimmerman had not escalated the situation.
and i really dont see how anybody can come to the defense of zimmerman.
he started the whole thing...escalated the situation and then uses deadly force and claims self defense.
WHAT?

take the beating you fucking pussy.
you dont kill a man because he is kicking your ass,especially since YOU are the one who instigated the confrontation.

and i am sorry @Darkhand but you are using the same circular logic that pratt is using.you cannot apply one set of logic to one person then turn around and say it does not apply to the other.
one person is the aggressor and the other is the defender.
you cannot,by definition,exchange these roles just to suit your narrative.
would you apply the same logic to a rape victim?
a woman who has been stalked and is being raped viciously and gets hold of a large,solid object and begins to beat her attacker over the head.
the rapist responds by pulling out a gun and shooting her in the chest..killing her.
did the rapist apply reasonable force to save his life?
by your logic...yes... but HE IS STILL THE ATTACKER/AGGRESSOR... not the victim.
so no matter how you wish to spin this situation... zimmerman will ALWAYS be the aggressor and that is the point.

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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 states with Castle Doctrine laws, you don't have to prove that someone is breaking into your house with harmful intent. The law assumes that the unauthorized entry implies felonious intent and authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself.

In other words, you don't have to wait around to be sure that the intruder is going to harm you, you can assume it from the act of illegal entry. This removes the troublesome and ill-defined burden of people in their own homes having to wait to get into a deadly situation where they find themselves at a disadvantage before they can defend themselves, and is, IMO a good law.

The thing that gun control advocates fail to acknowledge is that the guy breaking in was also aware of the law, i.e., that if you break into someone's home it's fair for the homeowner to assume that you're there to inflict personal injury and you can be killed with no criminal or civil repercussions on the shooter. He had the same information that she did regarding the law, yet she didn't choose whether or not to start the situation, he did.

Armed with that knowledge, he still chose to break into a woman's house carrying a weapon. There is simply nobody to blame in this situation other than the intruder. The man broke into her house intending to use violence in a calculated way to get whatever he wanted. He was met with someone who also was prepared to use violence, and he lost.

If she would have scared him off with a warning shot or something similar, he would have likely come back after her at some other place and time, when she was at a disadvantage. As unsavory as it is to take a life, the guy had it coming to him. The fact that she waited in her hall to shoot him when he came through the door is of no consequence, as it would have come to violence sooner or later. At least she was able to take advantage of her situation.