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.

You know Dick told his goons to go after him

Damn Syfy goons... cancelling Stargate. Look what you did to him!

another *dead video thanks to the copyright goon-squad

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

Uh, *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Goon-Red-Band-Trailer

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by ant. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Yeah that's been happening a lot to me lately too. I thought it was just the scotch.

>> ^CrushBug:

Did it go all double-vision for anyone else? Something happened to my embed, I think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

>> ^Fletch:

Do all goons, heavies, muscle, thugs, and bruisers chew gum?


I chew my nails when I run out of gum.

Do all goons, heavies, muscle, thugs, and bruisers chew gum?