Attorney General Praises Rev Sharpton

[mrsleeve]

So a verbal altercation is now a crime there smooth????


From all the reports I have read, at worst zimmerman followed thug lite for a little while and may have verbally confronted the little shit. Neither of thosee things is a crime, he then retreated to his car he was not the one to esclate the encounter to a crime thug lite was. This still puts his rights to self defence in play.


Your right you can't start a fight (a phsycial one you know assualt) and then find your sellf getting your ass kicked and thne esclate to deadly force and cry self defence as the inital phsycal aggresor.

Like I have explained to you several times now so long as you have not comitted a crime and are walking away and are attacked you still have your rights to self defence. A verbal confrontation is not a crime. They both should have let it be, piss poor judgement on both of their parts


Morrison: so you would not be in fear of your life when someone is bashing your head into the sidewalk over and over ??????



For the record as most of you know I am a firm beliver in self defence. I fully contened. While questionalbe judgement was used in this situation zimmerman was with in his rights. If on the other habd it comes out that he is lying or that he used his weapon when he should not have then toss him away for life. Idiots like this make all of us that carry a weapon look bad.

[smooth]

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. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2,


This is the section of the law the defense will use,,,,,,,, again even if this is not allowed, with the murder charge the PA has to prove motive, and intent to kill.

I provided section .041 which governs when an aggressor is allowed these protections. .041 governs his behavior, not .012, because by all accounts (including his own) he pursued martin and started the conflict.

The difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd in Florida is that 1st is premeditated (planned). That would require motive of the sort you are thinking of.

If zimmerman argues an affirmative defense he must admit his motive to kill martin. the issue then becomes whether he has a valid self-defense claim not whether he intended to kill martin when he shot him.

[z31maniac]

There is no universal "Stand Your Ground" law. I was discussing the legal theories embedded in the development of the law's history. Self defense protections don't automatically shift around from person to person during an altercation like mrsleeve was claiming. Each state is different, however, so here is Florida's code regarding when an aggressor is protected or not:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

From there, you can see that if zimmerman committed a felony upon martin (if he assaulted him or if he brandished his firearm, for example) then he forfeited any claim of stand your ground protection in Florida. 2b is clear that if you assail someone and try to retreat you have to indicate your surrender. That would not be in there if the assailed was required to retreat when the assailant does.

If you are correct and I am not, then explain the difference between "Stand Your Ground" legislation and pre-existing self defense legislation. Try to explain your position and thoughts without resorting to insulting me if you want me to consider your opinion.

Right to retreat? I'm not even sure why you are using that term because SYG means the attacked DOES NOT have to retreat........they can, "Stand their ground."


So we have me and you.

I attack you and you are fearful of your life or great bodily harm. At this point, you are within your right to respond with deadly force.

However, I get spooked/see someone coming to your aid/etc, and I run away, or retreat, you are no longer in imminent danger and you are no longer allowed to use deadly force and you are also not allowed to pursue me. Once you pursue me, you are no longer "Standing your Ground," but escalating the conflict.

Does that make more sense?

[mrsleeve]

^

Isn't that what I have said about 5 times now????

Just want to be sure phone posting is comming across correctly

[smooth]

Right to retreat? I'm not even sure why you are using that term because SYG means the attacked DOES NOT have to retreat........they can, "Stand their ground."


So we have me and you.

I attack you and you are fearful of your life or great bodily harm. At this point, you are within your right to respond with deadly force.

However, I get spooked/see someone coming to your aid/etc, and I run away, or retreat, you are no longer in imminent danger and you are no longer allowed to use deadly force and you are also not allowed to pursue me. Once you pursue me, you are no longer "Standing your Ground," but escalating the conflict.

Does that make more sense?

I'm using "right to retreat" because before SYG legislation many states that allowed lethal self-defense also mandated the victim to retreat if possible. The SYG legislation was an extension of the castle doctrine into the streets. Now a victim has a right to retreat in that it is the victim's decision to make, as opposed to the law's or the assailant's, to retreat from a crime or not.

I asked you to explain the difference between what you think self-defense laws required before SYG versus how they're modified now. You instead repeated your opinion about how the law is now.

I also pointed out that SYG legislation is different depending on the state. You continue to discuss it as if all SYG legislation is the same. Some states do not allow pursuit, some allow pursuit, Florida (and I quoted the relevant law) allows pursuit until the assailant explicitly states he or she wants to end the conflict and surrenders. You can't just "run away" to end an altercation and recover an umbrella of self-defense rights.

[mrsleeve]

Your point as to how it used to be are useless in this discussion. We are discussing the laws that pertain to this instance.

Trying to bring supeceeded laws into this is pointless

I have a bit of knowledge on this topic, I carry a weapon in many differant states than my home state. Laws varry from state to state and I am versed in this topic rather well.

[smooth]

you two aren't discussing much of anything. you're simply opining about the law whereas I'm laying out the legal reasoning for my position and explaining how the law applies in this situation

now if you do want to have a discussion you can start by answering the question I've asked z31maniac twice. contrary to your opinion, past law is not irrelevant to current law and this is even more true when it comes to something like SYG (which doesn't "supersede" self-defense or castle doctrine but rather expands it).

[Morrison]

I tend not to say or do things that provocate others into assaulting me. That's step one in prevention of head bashage. And if I was super concerned about the possibility of getting in an altercation I suppose I could enroll in one of those self defense classes where even women are taught how to throw someone twice their size onto the ground. Maybe that stuff doesn't work in real life and that's all a sham - I don't know since I've never taken one. I also don't carry a firearm, nor could I in the state of Illinios. So, in the event that an un-provoked psycho starts bashing me I guess the only thing left to do is try to throw them off, hit, them, kick them, bite them, hurl insults or whatever else I think might help.

Does nobody find it odd that Martin had no physical marks on his body other than the gunshot? Does this mean Zimmerman tried no other method of defense? Also, I'm amazed he had the ability to reach for, pull out, and perfectly aim his well concealed weapon while on his back, unable to hold his head steady from all the jarring motion. I'm not sure I'd posess that skill if I were to carry.

[Roysneon]

If mrsleeve can call Trayvon Marten thug lite, thug jr, etc. without having ever known him then from here on out Zimmerman should be called psyco racist murderer as well.

[gwb72tii]

I tend not to say or do things that provocate others into assaulting me. That's step one in prevention of head bashage. And if I was super concerned about the possibility of getting in an altercation I suppose I could enroll in one of those self defense classes where even women are taught how to throw someone twice their size onto the ground. Maybe that stuff doesn't work in real life and that's all a sham - I don't know since I've never taken one. I also don't carry a firearm, nor could I in the state of Illinios. So, in the event that an un-provoked psycho starts bashing me I guess the only thing left to do is try to throw them off, hit, them, kick them, bite them, hurl insults or whatever else I think might help.

Does nobody find it odd that Martin had no physical marks on his body other than the gunshot? Does this mean Zimmerman tried no other method of defense? Also, I'm amazed he had the ability to reach for, pull out, and perfectly aim his well concealed weapon while on his back, unable to hold his head steady from all the jarring motion. I'm not sure I'd posess that skill if I were to carry.

you're assuming was not dazed etc and was able to fight back. i thought he was punched and knocked to the ground where his head was lacerated. didn't zimmerman shoot trayvon when he was on top of him punching away? no need to aim at anything

[mrsleeve]

^^

Let's see here.

Posted to fb about his new "grilz". Check

Suspended from school multiple time for various things includeing drug possession ... check

Fb posts releating to a thugin kind life style. Check

His most recent photos give a more thug like appearance than choir boy. If it walks like a thug, talks like a thug, acts like a thug, then chances are thug is a fair acessment. I use jr or lite for the fact that I have not read where he has full blown gang affiliations.

Zimmerman has shown no inclination that race was a factor in this incident. Other than on edited for that effect by abc news stories. You are playing directly into what is trying to be portayed in the bulk of the media

[Thizzelle]

not saying he did or didn't do it but with the lack of any witness and evidence against him it's going to be hard for the prosecution to have him convicted. His story is all there is!
also again I blame the media they leave out alot of info making it seem like this kid is a very perfect kid but that's not true. I herd there is a mug shot of him at 14 years old, also many pictures of him trying to act tough. Don't know why a 17 year old would try to run up on almost a 30 year old? If that happened to me it would be 1 punch done, atleast from the high schoolers that live by me and show up at the gym.

[gwb72tii]

how big was trayvon? there are a lot of 17yr old "kids" that are full grown men physically

[Dirtsquirt]

If mrsleeve can call Trayvon Marten thug lite, thug jr, etc. without having ever known him then from here on out Zimmerman should be called psyco racist murderer as well.

Every little shithead is portrayed as an angel after they die. Happened when a jackass i went to school with was stabbed a few times after a streetrace got out of hand. Kid was a piece of shit bully and completely full of himself.

[z31maniac]

Happened when a jackass

....Missed his exit at 150mph, drunk at 2am.......