That Gun Totting Evil White Man that shot that poor black teen.

[Inthemiddle]

I know that I can scream and do other things, like run a chainsaw through a tree trunk, at the same time - done it. I imagine others can scream and do things at the same time, too.

How about you actually respond to what I said, instead of quoting me and giving a response that has nothing to do with what I said? I never said that one cannot yell and do something else at the same time. What I said is that if Zimmerman was under the kind of brutal attack that we would expect considering the kind of horrible screaming that was heard on the 911 tapes an alleged to be his, it's outright irrational to believe that, while under such brutal assault, he would have managed to pull out his gun. It's also irrational to believe that such a brutal assault left Zimmerman without more substantial injuries than what he's even claimed to have.

Show me the Florida law that indicates one loses a claim to stand their ground if they follow someone.

The problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the "stand your ground" doctrine as it has always been understood anywhere. Stand your ground has NEVER meant that a person has the right to CREATE a hostile situation, and then respond with deadly force. When you are the AGGRESSOR, self defense of any kind, including stand your ground, does not apply, by definition.

Please, show the LAW, not what someone else has written.

The statute I see, says no such thing (previously linked to numerous times, too, by me and others).

You've already posted the law, why should I do it again? Let's move on. Let's talk about legislative intent. In interpreting the law, the court will have to also take into account legislative intent. The theory you are proposing cannot be possible unless we are to believe that the intent of the legislature was to establish into law permission for people to create hostile situations, by which they could then become justified to kill another person who is themselves engaged in legitimate self defense. It's preposterous to believe that the legislature had such an intent. Therefore, the theory that you are proposing cannot be accepted.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Following someone doesn't make you the aggressor.

If you are following someone and they attack you....you can defend yourself.

This is why you are an idiot. Following someone, who is trying to evade you, and then confronting that person, DOES make you the aggressor. They have tried to evade you, and you have confronted them. Why does the person who tried to evade you not have a right to defend themselves also when any reasonable person would likely feel threatened in such a situation?

 

[Si modo]

I know that I can scream and do other things, like run a chainsaw through a tree trunk, at the same time - done it. I imagine others can scream and do things at the same time, too.

How about you actually respond to what I said, instead of quoting me and giving a response that has nothing to do with what I said? I never said that one cannot yell and do something else at the same time. What I said is that if Zimmerman was under the kind of brutal attack that we would expect considering the kind of horrible screaming that was heard on the 911 tapes an alleged to be his, it's outright irrational to believe that, while under such brutal assault, he would have managed to pull out his gun. It's also irrational to believe that such a brutal assault left Zimmerman without more substantial injuries than what he's even claimed to have.

Show me the Florida law that indicates one loses a claim to stand their ground if they follow someone.

The problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the "stand your ground" doctrine as it has always been understood anywhere. Stand your ground has NEVER meant that a person has the right to CREATE a hostile situation, and then respond with deadly force. When you are the AGGRESSOR, self defense of any kind, including stand your ground, does not apply, by definition.

Please, show the LAW, not what someone else has written.

The statute I see, says no such thing (previously linked to numerous times, too, by me and others).

You've already posted the law, why should I do it again? Let's move on. Let's talk about legislative intent. In interpreting the law, the court will have to also take into account legislative intent. The theory you are proposing cannot be possible unless we are to believe that the intent of the legislature was to establish into law permission for people to create hostile situations, by which they could then become justified to kill another person who is themselves engaged in legitimate self defense. It's preposterous to believe that the legislature had such an intent. Therefore, the theory that you are proposing cannot be accepted.

Still, I can scream and do something else at the same time. You can't. Oh well.

You are assuming a lot. Your assumptions are not equal to the truth.

And, you can't show me the Florida law that indicates following disallows protection from stand your ground. It doesn't.

It was a simple request, but you lack of ability to show actual LAW is not surprising.

Legislative intent is ONLY probative based on rhetoric of lawmakers BEFORE the law is passed. Not after.

 

[Ariux]

His conversation with his girlfriend is on tape?[/quote]

Link, please.[/QUOTE]

The Africanette never called 911. Apparently she never thought her African was in danger, at least not enough to call police. And, only a real moron (that means you, Democrats) would doubt that she wouldn't distort the phone conversation to prevent her African from looking bad. If he called Zimmerman a cracker, would she say so? If he said he's going to "fuck him up", would she say so?

The African tried to intimidate Zimmerman, we know that from Zimmerman's 911 tape. "We's coming toward me... He's checking me out..."

 

[beagle9]

I know that I can scream and do other things, like run a chainsaw through a tree trunk, at the same time - done it. I imagine others can scream and do things at the same time, too.

How about you actually respond to what I said, instead of quoting me and giving a response that has nothing to do with what I said? I never said that one cannot yell and do something else at the same time. What I said is that if Zimmerman was under the kind of brutal attack that we would expect considering the kind of horrible screaming that was heard on the 911 tapes an alleged to be his, it's outright irrational to believe that, while under such brutal assault, he would have managed to pull out his gun.

It's also irrational to believe that such a brutal assault left Zimmerman without more substantial injuries than what he's even claimed to have.

Show me the Florida law that indicates one loses a claim to stand their ground if they follow someone.

The problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the "stand your ground" doctrine as it has always been understood anywhere. Stand your ground has NEVER meant that a person has the right to CREATE a hostile situation, and then respond with deadly force. When you are the AGGRESSOR, self defense of any kind, including stand your ground, does not apply, by definition.

Please, show the LAW, not what someone else has written.

The statute I see, says no such thing (previously linked to numerous times, too, by me and others).

You've already posted the law, why should I do it again? Let's move on. Let's talk about legislative intent. In interpreting the law, the court will have to also take into account legislative intent. The theory you are proposing cannot be possible unless we are to believe that the intent of the legislature was to establish into law permission for people to create hostile situations, by which they could then become justified to kill another person who is themselves engaged in legitimate self defense. It's preposterous to believe that the legislature had such an intent. Therefore, the theory that you are proposing cannot be accepted.

Responding to what is highlighted in red above!

The very fact that he was under a brutal attack, is exactly why one would pull out a gun and begin to shoot at that point, and this when one gets his hand on it finally.....sheesh!

Zimmerman claimed to have had injury's, and then detailed them for us on record ? Or was it rather reported by the SFD who treated Zimmerman, in which gave account of his injury's ? Which is it ?

You say with certainty that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but actually you don't know this to be true, but yet you choose to keep on saying it anyway, and then you base your whole arguments and speculation upon it when speaking.. Do you know something better than the witnesses, cops/investigators, SFD etc. that were on the scene that day, and also including the ones who are soon to be compiling evidence (putting the puzzel together), for a grand jury, and what they may know already? Point us to your solid evidence please...

 

[Ravi]

I know that I can scream and do other things, like run a chainsaw through a tree trunk, at the same time - done it. I imagine others can scream and do things at the same time, too.

How about you actually respond to what I said, instead of quoting me and giving a response that has nothing to do with what I said? I never said that one cannot yell and do something else at the same time. What I said is that if Zimmerman was under the kind of brutal attack that we would expect considering the kind of horrible screaming that was heard on the 911 tapes an alleged to be his, it's outright irrational to believe that, while under such brutal assault, he would have managed to pull out his gun. It's also irrational to believe that such a brutal assault left Zimmerman without more substantial injuries than what he's even claimed to have.



The problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the "stand your ground" doctrine as it has always been understood anywhere. Stand your ground has NEVER meant that a person has the right to CREATE a hostile situation, and then respond with deadly force. When you are the AGGRESSOR, self defense of any kind, including stand your ground, does not apply, by definition.

Please, show the LAW, not what someone else has written.

The statute I see, says no such thing (previously linked to numerous times, too, by me and others).

You've already posted the law, why should I do it again? Let's move on. Let's talk about legislative intent. In interpreting the law, the court will have to also take into account legislative intent. The theory you are proposing cannot be possible unless we are to believe that the intent of the legislature was to establish into law permission for people to create hostile situations, by which they could then become justified to kill another person who is themselves engaged in legitimate self defense. It's preposterous to believe that the legislature had such an intent. Therefore, the theory that you are proposing cannot be accepted.

Still, I can scream and do something else at the same time. You can't. Oh well.

You are assuming a lot. Your assumptions are not equal to the truth.

And, you can't show me the Florida law that indicates following disallows protection from stand your ground. It doesn't.

It was a simple request, but you lack of ability to show actual LAW is not surprising.

Legislative intent is ONLY probative based on rhetoric of lawmakers BEFORE the law is passed. Not after.

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

 

[LoneLaugher]

This case is bringing out the vomitous nature of many nutters.

 

[PredFan]

His conversation with his girlfriend is on tape?

Link, please.[/QUOTE]

The Africanette never called 911. Apparently she never thought her African was in danger, at least not enough to call police. And, only a real moron (that means you, Democrats) would doubt that she wouldn't distort the phone conversation to prevent her African from looking bad. If he called Zimmerman a cracker, would she say so? If he said he's going to "fuck him up", would she say so?

The African tried to intimidate Zimmerman, we know that from Zimmerman's 911 tape. "We's coming toward me... He's checking me out..."[/QUOTE]

Dammit I don't want to give any cudos to this racist piece of shit, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. No rep for you though.

 

[PredFan]

This case is bringing out the vomitous nature of many nutters.

That it is.

 

[Si modo]

How about you actually respond to what I said, instead of quoting me and giving a response that has nothing to do with what I said? I never said that one cannot yell and do something else at the same time. What I said is that if Zimmerman was under the kind of brutal attack that we would expect considering the kind of horrible screaming that was heard on the 911 tapes an alleged to be his, it's outright irrational to believe that, while under such brutal assault, he would have managed to pull out his gun. It's also irrational to believe that such a brutal assault left Zimmerman without more substantial injuries than what he's even claimed to have.



The problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the "stand your ground" doctrine as it has always been understood anywhere. Stand your ground has NEVER meant that a person has the right to CREATE a hostile situation, and then respond with deadly force. When you are the AGGRESSOR, self defense of any kind, including stand your ground, does not apply, by definition.



You've already posted the law, why should I do it again? Let's move on. Let's talk about legislative intent. In interpreting the law, the court will have to also take into account legislative intent. The theory you are proposing cannot be possible unless we are to believe that the intent of the legislature was to establish into law permission for people to create hostile situations, by which they could then become justified to kill another person who is themselves engaged in legitimate self defense. It's preposterous to believe that the legislature had such an intent. Therefore, the theory that you are proposing cannot be accepted.

Still, I can scream and do something else at the same time. You can't. Oh well.

You are assuming a lot. Your assumptions are not equal to the truth.

And, you can't show me the Florida law that indicates following disallows protection from stand your ground. It doesn't.

It was a simple request, but you lack of ability to show actual LAW is not surprising.

Legislative intent is ONLY probative based on rhetoric of lawmakers BEFORE the law is passed. Not after.

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

 

[Ravi]

Still, I can scream and do something else at the same time. You can't. Oh well.

You are assuming a lot. Your assumptions are not equal to the truth.

And, you can't show me the Florida law that indicates following disallows protection from stand your ground. It doesn't.

It was a simple request, but you lack of ability to show actual LAW is not surprising.

Legislative intent is ONLY probative based on rhetoric of lawmakers BEFORE the law is passed. Not after.

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

Sure, but it doesn't fit with Zimmerman's explanations. You don't call 911 and then follow someone if you fear them.

 

[Peach]

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

Sure, but it doesn't fit with Zimmerman's explanations. You don't call 911 and then follow someone if you fear them.

Some people might but it indicates to many Zimmerman had no fear, he was armed and ready to draw obviously.......

 

[Peach]

His conversation with his girlfriend is on tape?

Link, please.[/QUOTE]

The Africanette never called 911. Apparently she never thought her African was in danger, at least not enough to call police. And, only a real moron (that means you, Democrats) would doubt that she wouldn't distort the phone conversation to prevent her African from looking bad. If he called Zimmerman a cracker, would she say so? If he said he's going to "fuck him up", would she say so?

The African tried to intimidate Zimmerman, we know that from Zimmerman's 911 tape. "We's coming toward me... He's checking me out..."[/QUOTE]

Africanette never called 911. Apparently she never thought her African

BOTH are Americans..................................

 

[Si modo]

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

Sure, but it doesn't fit with Zimmerman's explanations. You don't call 911 and then follow someone if you fear them.

That's right. You don't usually follow if you fear them.

Do you find it possible that upon encountering someone you didn't fear that you can then fear them?

I do.

 

[Si modo]

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

Sure, but it doesn't fit with Zimmerman's explanations. You don't call 911 and then follow someone if you fear them.

Some people might but it indicates to many Zimmerman had no fear, he was armed and ready to draw obviously.......

It indicates that Zimmerman didn't fear Martin when he decided to follow him.

It doesn't indicate anything about Zimmerman's emotional state once he encountered Martin. Nothing at all.

 

[Zoom]

Is actually hispanic.

suchttp://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,5792590,full.storyk it race baiters.

I will take a wild guess here and say he self identifies himself as a white guy. I would bet the farm on that.

In reality, it doesnt matter to me. He is a racist. He called that kid a "coon" then shot and killed him after stalking him.

 

[beagle9]

It probably would because one doesn't follow someone that they are in mortal fear of....

Do you find it possible that someone can commence following another without any fear?

I do.

Do you find it possible that the follower, upon catching up to and encountering the 'followee', can THEN be in fear?

I do.

Sure, but it doesn't fit with Zimmerman's explanations. You don't call 911 and then follow someone if you fear them.

Wrong, if you are in fear of someone or you are highly suspicious of them, then you sure will call 9-11 first (in order to get help on the way), and this before you start to follow or continue survielence on someone in which you do fear, and for whom may take you into the unknown in which is found in that fear.

If someone is breaking into your house, the first thing you do is call 9-11 to get help on the way, and then you go out with fear in your heart, and many times a gun, baseball bat and/or etc. in hand, to try and see who it is that may be breaking into your house....

 

[beagle9]

Is actually hispanic.

suchttp://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,5792590,full.storyk it race baiters.

I will take a wild guess here and say he self identifies himself as a white guy. I would bet the farm on that.
In reality, it doesnt matter to me. He is a racist.

He called that kid a "coon" then shot and killed him after stalking him.

Called him a coon ? Link please..................The above statement in red, is racist I hope you know that....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Late to the party and demanding that the band repeats the set.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What matters is the circumstances of the shooting and the fact that the local police ignored an obvious murder. The race of the individuals involved are critical because of it being in the south. Were it anywhere else, and the people involved of the same or differant races, and the local police reacted in this manner, it would warrant federal investigation, also.

The asshole was out to kill somebody. Had a concealed carry permit, and was packing heat. When you are in that positon, and you initiate the conflict, you are automatically wrong. When you have just been told to back off, as was the case here, you have committed murder.

Really he was out to kill someone? Are police officers out to kill someone because they carry a firearm?