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

[Si modo]

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

It's all recorded. Don't be so lazy and expect others to catch you up.

I know you can do it! Trust in yourself. Just a few clicks, a few scrolls, and that's all....other than the reading, that is.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

How so? Can you show what part of the law disallows protection or exemption from the law if one follows, please.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

How so? Can you show what part of the law disallows protection or exemption from the law if one follows, please.

It doesn't need to be a part of the law. Following someone indicates an aggressive move. Stand your ground wouldn't cover it. Self-defense might, but a self-defense claim would require a trial.

 

[Si modo]

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

How so? Can you show what part of the law disallows protection or exemption from the law if one follows, please.

It doesn't need to be a part of the law. Following someone indicates an aggressive move. Stand your ground wouldn't cover it. Self-defense might, but a self-defense claim would require a trial.

I'm not seeing that exemption (section 2 lists the exemptions) in the law:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

[Ravi]

Following isn't defensive.

 

[Si modo]

Following isn't defensive.

It's not.

But, he wasn't face to face when following.

I can follow someone, then when I catch up and they turn to me to ask me why I'm following, I'm no longer following.

What happened after that caused Zimmerman to end up on his back on the ground and with head wounds.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Like ramming ones head into a wall of stupid.

 

[Si modo]

Like ramming ones head into a wall of stupid.

What is?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Discussing something with someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong.

You have suspended logic and reality by pretending that following someone is not an aggressive act that negates any claims of subsequent fear for ones well being.

You fail to grasp that the person being followed, who might very well feel afraid and threatened, is within his/her rights if they attack the follower under the law in question.

This has been patiently explained to you. Yet, you hang on to your error for dear life.

That is what.

 

[Si modo]

Discussing something with someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong.

You have suspended logic and reality by pretending that following someone is not an aggressive act that negates any claims of subsequent fear for ones well being.

You fail to grasp that the person being followed, who might very well feel afraid and threatened, is within his/her rights if they attack the follower under the law in question.

This has been patiently explained to you. Yet, you hang on to your error for dear life.

That is what.

Really? I've said that following is not an aggressive act?

You'll link to that post of mine, right?



Kneejerk.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I write full sentences. Please be kind and read them as such. Thanks.

 

[Si modo]

I write full sentences. Please be kind and read them as such. Thanks.

Really? I've said that following is not an aggressive act?

I'm still waiting for you to link to that post of mine.

(I know you can't, but I can wait.)

 

[beagle9]

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.

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

There is no way that this statement can be true in which I have highlighted in red above as written by Ravi....How come you (Ravi) give Trayvon this right to somehow beat someone up, just because he ((((felt threatened)))) according to your words above, but the one getting the beat down had no rights to defend himself ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Si modo]

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.

Yep. If someone is following you, in Florida, you are free to beat the shit out of them if you feel threatened. So I can certainly see that the possibility of Zimmerman becoming afraid exists. But the fact that he followed him would tend to negate his immunity under stand your ground.

There is no way that this statement can be true in which I have highlighted in red above as written by Ravi....How come you (Ravi) give Trayvon this right to somehow beat someone up, just because he ((((felt threatened)))) according to your words above, but the one getting the beat down had no rights to defend himself ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Right. There is no "who started it" section in the stand your ground law.

It's a bad law, IMO, and not just for that.

 

[beagle9]

How so? Can you show what part of the law disallows protection or exemption from the law if one follows, please.

It doesn't need to be a part of the law. Following someone indicates an aggressive move. Stand your ground wouldn't cover it. Self-defense might, but a self-defense claim would require a trial.

I'm not seeing that exemption (section 2 lists the exemptions) in the law:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

I have a problem with this area of the law in which I have highlighted in red...

The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred

Reason to believe ??????? Ok, so what (((if))) the reasoning in the belief was wrong, where by shouldn't it say that "if the person has direct knowledge of", instead of this "reason to believe" stuff, as is written in the law above?

And what about this "or had occured", is this saying that if someone told me that my rims were stolen by someone else (meaning had occurred already) then I can go and beat the person down with a supposed defensive force used, instead of calling the law first ? This area in that law above gives way to much leadway for wrongful interpretation by those who may be looking at this law or have knowledge of it, in which has these broad kinds of wordings written into it....Am I wrong in my looking at this in this way, when I came upon this as is written into the statute that was posted above yall ?

 

[Si modo]

It doesn't need to be a part of the law. Following someone indicates an aggressive move. Stand your ground wouldn't cover it. Self-defense might, but a self-defense claim would require a trial.

I'm not seeing that exemption (section 2 lists the exemptions) in the law:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

I have a problem with this area of the law in which I have highlighted in red...

The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred

Reason to believe ??????? Ok, so what (((if))) the reasoning in the belief was wrong, where by shouldn't it say that "if the person has direct knowledge of", instead of this "reason to believe" stuff, as is written in the law above?

And what about this "or had occured", is this saying that if someone told me that my rims were stolen by someone else (meaning had occurred already) then I can go and beat the person down with a supposed defensive force used, instead of calling the law first ? This area in that law above gives way to much leadway for wrongful interpretation by those who may be looking at this law or have knowledge of it, in which has these broad kinds of wordings written into it....Am I wrong in my looking at this in this way, when I came upon this as is written into the statute that was posted above yall ?

I think it's a very bad law for so many reasons. That's another.