I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[Rocko]

It's an easily sensationalized story for the 24-hour news networks to pull in the usual crowd of people that can't get enough of other people's misery and get ratings. In short, it sells.

To politicize it is just par for the course in today's political discourse, but as you say, it's sickening.

This happened over three weeks ago. If not for the family "politicizing" it, the case would have been swept under the rug

Had the victim and perp been of the same race no one would be "politicizing" this story.

I'm not upset about a crusade for justice, but for most of the people advocating justice, it's not about justice, it's about getting ahead with their point of view in racial politics.

 

[Si modo]

http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2005-027.pdf there it is.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of
death or great bodily harm.—
(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.

Under part 1, zimmerman has no protection

(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.

Section 2 does not allow for defensive force to have been used in this situation

(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.

Section 3 does not apply to zimmerman either.

The law does not protect what he did at all.

here is section 3:

(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.​

Please explain how that does not apply to Zimmerman.

Here is my analysis:

- Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.

- The evidence at the scene indicates that Zimmerman was physically attacked, and witness statements corroborate that.

- Zimmerman had a right to be there.

- And, Zimmerman told the cops that he called for help and no one came (witness statement corroborates that someone called for help).

- And, only Zimmerman knows what he feared or not. I can guess what he says, too.

So, if I'm missing something, please explain to me what it is.

Zimmerman was not attacked, he persued and initiated the contact. If Zimmermen had not left to persue the situation would not have arose. This is why part 3 does not protect him.

Zimmerman had wounds on his head and grass stains on his back, according to the report by the cops first on the scene. Are you saying there is evidence that he got them some other way other than Martin? By someone else who may have been there? Self-inflicted?

Zimmerman can legally pursue anyone he wants for any reason, unless there is a court ordering him not to do so. So, he was legally in that area for legal reasons, unless you have some law to indicate otherwise.

Finally, you can SAY that the statute does not apply to him, but I am not seeing the part of the statute that says that. Where in the statute does it say this cannot apply to someone who follows another? And, where in the statute does it say that this cannot apply to someone who 'starts it'?

I may agree with your words as it pertains to my personal beleifs, but the law is what matters here, not my personal opinion of what the law should mean.

So, if you could, that would be great.

 

[Crackerjack]

He was a right wing extremist with guns and racism.

I sure would love to know how you became aware of his political ideology.

 

[DiamondDave]

except that it IS about race. if a black man killed a white kid after pursuing them for no reason, we'd be talking about whether the guy should do life or get the death penalty.

so you can complain, but a lot of people marched for civil rights, too.

No... this is about the incident, evidence, and what really happened.... not about whether one was black the other white.. or one yellow and one Aleutian... or one albino and one mixed race.... or anything else... NOR SHOULD IT BE

no. they didn't even take the guy in.

it's about race.

you can pretend otherwise.if it weren't the feds wouldn't have had to get involved.

and you really thanked drunk tommy? really??

No.. it is not all about race... but you have some trying to make it all about race....

The Feds DON'T have to get involved... it is not their jurisdiction... as stated, if the local, county, or state authorities ask for help, I am sure the Fed would... but an alleged murder case is not the Fed's jurisdiction

And yes... I thank the comments... I have even thanked wrongwinger on the rare occasion for a comment

 

[The T]

It's an easily sensationalized story for the 24-hour news networks to pull in the usual crowd of people that can't get enough of other people's misery and get ratings. In short, it sells.

To politicize it is just par for the course in today's political discourse, but as you say, it's sickening.

This happened over three weeks ago. If not for the family "politicizing" it, the case would have been swept under the rug

Had the victim and perp been of the same race no one would be "politicizing" this story.

I'm not upset about a crusade for justice, but for most of the people advocating justice, it's not about justice, it's about getting ahead with their point of view in racial politics.

And the usual suspects show up time and time again.

 

[paperview]

Zimmerman apparently has no white blood in him. He's hispanic with an amalgum of other races most notably black.

His mother is Peruvian and his father is white.

The police report notes him as "white."

To most observers, he is white.

Where you get your "amalgam of other races most notably black" one can only guess.

Here's the first link where his family describes him as "Multi-racial Hispanic". There is another article that I read just today that stated that he has very close family members that were black. I'm still trying to find that article.

Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

One thing you need to know - the Examiner is rubbish, and you basically just posted a blog opinion piece by someone, but he thanks you for the hits. Ca-ching for him.

We know his father said he was multi-racial. That's old news. We also know his father lies. Not about that-we know he does have Peruvian blood. I Already stated that. It was you that had him swimming in black blood.

 

[Peach]

He was a right wing extremist with guns and racism.

I sure would love to know how you became aware of his political ideology.

He is subject to indictment by the Grand Jury, scheduled to convene April 10, 2012.

 

[The T]

No... this is about the incident, evidence, and what really happened.... not about whether one was black the other white.. or one yellow and one Aleutian... or one albino and one mixed race.... or anything else... NOR SHOULD IT BE

no. they didn't even take the guy in.

it's about race.

you can pretend otherwise.if it weren't the feds wouldn't have had to get involved.

and you really thanked drunk tommy? really??

No.. it is not all about race... but you have some trying to make it all about race....

The Feds DON'T have to get involved... it is not their jurisdiction... as stated, if the local, county, or state authorities ask for help, I am sure the Fed would... but an alleged murder case is not the Fed's jurisdiction

And yes... I thank the comments... I have even thanked wrongwinger on the rare occasion for a comment

These idiots just can't help themselves.

 

[Crackerjack]

He was a right wing extremist with guns and racism.

I sure would love to know how you became aware of his political ideology.

He is subject to indictment by the Grand Jury, scheduled to convene April 10, 2012.

I love lamp. Do you like pie?

 

[PredFan]

His mother is Peruvian and his father is white.

The police report notes him as "white."

To most observers, he is white.

Where you get your "amalgam of other races most notably black" one can only guess.

Here's the first link where his family describes him as "Multi-racial Hispanic". There is another article that I read just today that stated that he has very close family members that were black. I'm still trying to find that article.

Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

One thing you need to know - the Examiner is rubbish, and you basically just posted a blog opinion piece by someone, but he thanks you for the hits. Ca-ching for him.

We know his father said he was multi-racial. That's old news. We also know his father lies. Not about that-we know he does have Peruvian blood. I Already stated that. It was you that had him swimming in black blood.

I said I was looking for the article that I read. I still am. I've been reading a lot about this case for weeks. If it's wrong, I'll admit it but it doesn't matter if the examiner is right leaning or not, that fact is that he is not white.

 

[WillowTree]

This happened over three weeks ago. If not for the family "politicizing" it, the case would have been swept under the rug

Had the victim and perp been of the same race no one would be "politicizing" this story.

I'm not upset about a crusade for justice, but for most of the people advocating justice, it's not about justice, it's about getting ahead with their point of view in racial politics.

And the usual suspects show up time and time again.

tough shit for ewe innit?

 

[Si modo]

I sure would love to know how you became aware of his political ideology.

He is subject to indictment by the Grand Jury, scheduled to convene April 10, 2012.

I love lamp. Do you like pie?

(I am glad someone sees the same thing I do.)

 

[High_Gravity]

here is section 3:

(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.​

Please explain how that does not apply to Zimmerman.

Here is my analysis:

- Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.

- The evidence at the scene indicates that Zimmerman was physically attacked, and witness statements corroborate that.

- Zimmerman had a right to be there.

- And, Zimmerman told the cops that he called for help and no one came (witness statement corroborates that someone called for help).

- And, only Zimmerman knows what he feared or not. I can guess what he says, too.

So, if I'm missing something, please explain to me what it is.

Zimmerman was not attacked, he persued and initiated the contact. If Zimmermen had not left to persue the situation would not have arose. This is why part 3 does not protect him.

Zimmerman had wounds on his head and grass stains on his back, according to the report by the cops first on the scene. Are you saying there is evidence that he got them some other way other than Martin? By someone else who may have been there? Self-inflicted?

Zimmerman can legally pursue anyone he wants for any reason, unless there is a court ordering him not to do so. So, he was legally in that area for legal reasons, unless you have some law to indicate otherwise.

Finally, you can SAY that the statute does not apply to him, but I am not seeing the part of the statute that says that. Where in the statute does it say this cannot apply to someone who follows another? And, where in the statute does it say that this cannot apply to someone who 'starts it'?

I may agree with your words as it pertains to my personal beleifs, but the law is what matters here, not my personal opinion of what the law should mean.

So, if you could, that would be great.

Si what does that even mean? I can grab my 9 MM and start chasing people down in the street I deem suspicious? I thought the only people allowed to "pursue" others were police or other law enforcement types.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Zimmerman was not attacked, he persued and initiated the contact. If Zimmermen had not left to persue the situation would not have arose. This is why part 3 does not protect him.

initiated contact? you don't know that. we do know Martin initiated a verbal confrontation. his own girlfriend verified this

I do know that from the 911 call where the operator told him to not initiate contact...and he did anyway.

 

[The T]

Had the victim and perp been of the same race no one would be "politicizing" this story.

I'm not upset about a crusade for justice, but for most of the people advocating justice, it's not about justice, it's about getting ahead with their point of view in racial politics.

And the usual suspects show up time and time again.

tough shit for ewe innit?

For me? Really?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

here is section 3:

(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.​

Please explain how that does not apply to Zimmerman.

Here is my analysis:

- Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.

- The evidence at the scene indicates that Zimmerman was physically attacked, and witness statements corroborate that.

- Zimmerman had a right to be there.

- And, Zimmerman told the cops that he called for help and no one came (witness statement corroborates that someone called for help).

- And, only Zimmerman knows what he feared or not. I can guess what he says, too.

So, if I'm missing something, please explain to me what it is.

Zimmerman was not attacked, he persued and initiated the contact. If Zimmermen had not left to persue the situation would not have arose. This is why part 3 does not protect him.

Zimmerman had wounds on his head and grass stains on his back, according to the report by the cops first on the scene. Are you saying there is evidence that he got them some other way other than Martin? By someone else who may have been there? Self-inflicted?

Zimmerman can legally pursue anyone he wants for any reason, unless there is a court ordering him not to do so. So, he was legally in that area for legal reasons, unless you have some law to indicate otherwise.

Finally, you can SAY that the statute does not apply to him, but I am not seeing the part of the statute that says that. Where in the statute does it say this cannot apply to someone who follows another? And, where in the statute does it say that this cannot apply to someone who 'starts it'?

I may agree with your words as it pertains to my personal beleifs, but the law is what matters here, not my personal opinion of what the law should mean.

So, if you could, that would be great.

And the law, as i have already shown, does not protect him at all. The 911 call backs up what I am saying perfectly.

He was instructed to not intiate a confontation and did anyway, by intiating a confrontation with the other person he lost all protection under the law according to the language of the law. This law is worded to protect those defending themselves, not to protect those initiating a situation.

 

[Crackerjack]

He is subject to indictment by the Grand Jury, scheduled to convene April 10, 2012.

I love lamp. Do you like pie?

(I am glad someone sees the same thing I do.)

Yeah, I had that half-second debate with myself as to whether I was the crazy one in this equation or not.

The voices in my head assured me that I'm sane, so we're good.

 

[Rocko]

And the usual suspects show up time and time again.

tough shit for ewe innit?

For me? Really?

 

[PredFan]

His mother is Peruvian and his father is white.

The police report notes him as "white."

To most observers, he is white.

Where you get your "amalgam of other races most notably black" one can only guess.

Here's the first link where his family describes him as "Multi-racial Hispanic". There is another article that I read just today that stated that he has very close family members that were black. I'm still trying to find that article.

Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

One thing you need to know - the Examiner is rubbish, and you basically just posted a blog opinion piece by someone, but he thanks you for the hits. Ca-ching for him.

We know his father said he was multi-racial. That's old news. We also know his father lies. Not about that-we know he does have Peruvian blood. I Already stated that. It was you that had him swimming in black blood.

Ok, it isn't exactly what I read but it's CNN who says he has black family members. Unless you think CNN is a right wing blog?

I'm still trying to find the article that said he had direct blood relatives that were black. You can bet your ass that when I do, you will find it in your face right quick.

Neighbors describe watch leader at center of Florida investigation - CNN.com

 

[Si modo]

Zimmerman was not attacked, he persued and initiated the contact. If Zimmermen had not left to persue the situation would not have arose. This is why part 3 does not protect him.

Zimmerman had wounds on his head and grass stains on his back, according to the report by the cops first on the scene. Are you saying there is evidence that he got them some other way other than Martin? By someone else who may have been there? Self-inflicted?

Zimmerman can legally pursue anyone he wants for any reason, unless there is a court ordering him not to do so. So, he was legally in that area for legal reasons, unless you have some law to indicate otherwise.

Finally, you can SAY that the statute does not apply to him, but I am not seeing the part of the statute that says that. Where in the statute does it say this cannot apply to someone who follows another? And, where in the statute does it say that this cannot apply to someone who 'starts it'?

I may agree with your words as it pertains to my personal beleifs, but the law is what matters here, not my personal opinion of what the law should mean.

So, if you could, that would be great.

Si what does that even mean? I can grab my 9 MM and start chasing people down in the street I deem suspicious? I thought the only people allowed to "pursue" others were police or other law enforcement types.

I'm pretty sure I can legally follow anyone I want to follow. I've done it as a matter of fact. I've even hired a PI to do it.

Whether I have a gun on me or not when I do it doesn't matter, unless I don't have a permit.

And, IF the law - that's an IF, because I haven't seen any law quoted that says so - says that I can only defend myself with deadly force if I don't instigate something, then that law is bad as well. For example, if I simply shove someone for some reason - accidentally or just because I think the person is ugly - and then they attack me and attack me hard, that would mean I cannot use deadly force to defend myself. I would be a goner.

The law is bad. It needs to go.