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

[Inthemiddle]

or you could just shut your yap and look at the statute

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

 

[Si modo]

or you could just shut your yap and look at the statute

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

 

[Dante]

no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

and Zimmerman and the police never said Zimmerman shot Martin because Zimmerman thought Martin was about to commit a crime.

so reading and comprehension is not in your back of tricks?

I'll help you. Under the law- Zimmerman claimed self defense in fear for his life while being beaten down by Trayvon Martin, a 6'3" young man.

 

[Inthemiddle]

or you could just shut your yap and look at the statute

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

 

[Si modo]

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

Not really. He is PRESUMED innocent AND PRESUMED to have the law apply to him.

Your burden. I just presume what the law says I have to.

And, you should read section 3.

Which you didn't quote.

 

[Ravi]

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

Here's a case that was in today's paper for contrast. A man was ruled immune from prosecution for killing a burglar that he caught in the act. Notice that a judge made the determination. In Zimmerman's case, it never got to a judge to decide.

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decision - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

 

[Dante]

For all the babbling that people are doing, you would think that they had read the statute. At least, they act like they've read the statute. But anyone who has read the statute clearly sees that no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

the law applies if a man is being beaten into submission on the ground while fearing for his life.

you and every other nitwit here have no evidence to the contrary. only speck-u-lation

 

[Inthemiddle]

no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

and Zimmerman and the police never said Zimmerman shot Martin because Zimmerman thought Martin was about to commit a crime.

so reading and comprehension is not in your back of tricks?

Reading comprehension is well within my grasp, but not yours, apparently. Zimmerman pursued Martin on the false believe that Martin was "up to no good." Such a scenario does not invoke application of the stand your ground law. Stand your ground applies to when a the person against whom force is used is actually engaged in an illegal entry. Zimmerman's actions are not covered under the stand your ground law.

I'll help you. Under the law- Zimmerman claimed self defense

Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.

in fear for his life while being beaten down by Trayvon Martin, a 6'3" young man.

Martin was 150 pounds. At his height he was a fragile twig, easily broken. I'm only 5'7" and I weigh 160. At 5'9" Zimmerman is over 200 pounds. It's ridiculous to think that Martin would have been able to take Zimmerman down with one punch, as Martin claims.

 

[Gadawg73]

Another one! LOL!!! LOL!!!

Marc, don't you believe now that the initial media reports were one sided and they should have waited until the evidence was collected before the rush to judgment?

I am not condoning what Zimmerman did or didn't do or making up my mind yet as I have not seen ALL the evidence or probably anywhere near all of the evidence but it is very clear Marc that the initial reports on this were not true. Initial reports had Zimmerman gunning this kid down in cold blood and we know now that part is not true. There was a fight and Zimmerman pulled the gun when he was on the ground and shot him.
And there is evidence that Martin saw the gun before the fight but maybe Zimmerman threatened him with it, who knows? Maybe Martin felt like HIS life was in danger if a gun was pulled on him. Could be that way also as NO one knows. Could be that he was acting in fear of his life after seeing the gun. In his mind seeing a gun pulled on him meant that the gun was pulled TO BE USED ON HIM.
We just do not know. As a result of all of this there is no question in my mind the initial claims of "police corruption" and "they are not doing anything" are bogus to the core.
Both parties deserve the presumption of innocence in this case and Zimmerman did not get that after the circus side show started.

No, I don't believe the media is hyping this up out of proportion.

We have an armed adult, killing an unarmed kid.

We have a man that was told not to pursue the kid.

We have a man that pursued the kid.

We have a kid that was now gunned down dead.

Had the adult man followed the instructions of the authorities and not pursue or discontinue his pursuit of the kid, who had EVERY RIGHT to be where he was, the kid would not be dead.

All of the above are facts.

How could such a man not be arrested with all the above?

How could such a man have a gun in the first place?

I believe these are the main points the media is talking about and questions being asked in the media.

Those are all fair.

He was NEVER told not to pursue the kid. If he was, 911 operators are not authorized to make those demands anyway. Why do you distort the truth. "You do not have to" is what he was told. Distortion #1 by Marc.
Media has misprepresented most of the facts and not reported many others.
Distortion #2.
There is no duty to arrest anyone until a grand jury meets in most jurisdictions in America.
Distortion #3.
He had A LICENSE to carry the guy.
Distortion #4 by Marc.
"gunned down" That is a lie Marc and you know it. The gun was fired with Martin on top of Zimmerman. Lie #1 by Marc.

Your mind is made up as you are bitter, biased and prejudiced.
I thought you were different. I am open to the evidence as possibly Martin had the gun waved in his face before he took Zimmerman to the ground. To me that is self defense and Martin would be okay doing it. I have an open mind.
You do not and would be unfit to serve on any jury, especially this one.

 

[Gadawg73]

no part of it applies to a person out in public who pursues another person on the false belief that said other person is about to commit a crime.

and Zimmerman and the police never said Zimmerman shot Martin because Zimmerman thought Martin was about to commit a crime.

so reading and comprehension is not in your back of tricks?

Reading comprehension is well within my grasp, but not yours, apparently. Zimmerman pursued Martin on the false believe that Martin was "up to no good." Such a scenario does not invoke application of the stand your ground law. Stand your ground applies to when a the person against whom force is used is actually engaged in an illegal entry. Zimmerman's actions are not covered under the stand your ground law.

I'll help you. Under the law- Zimmerman claimed self defense

Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.

in fear for his life while being beaten down by Trayvon Martin, a 6'3" young man.

Martin was 150 pounds. At his height he was a fragile twig, easily broken. I'm only 5'7" and I weigh 160. At 5'9" Zimmerman is over 200 pounds. It's ridiculous to think that Martin would have been able to take Zimmerman down with one punch, as Martin claims.

"He was fragile twig, easily broken"
You are a joke.

 

[Gadawg73]

I've read the statute several times.

Now, could you point out what part in that law disqualifies what Zimmerman did for protection under that law?

Thanks.

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

Here's a case that was in today's paper for contrast. A man was ruled immune from prosecution for killing a burglar that he caught in the act. Notice that a judge made the determination. In Zimmerman's case, it never got to a judge to decide.

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decision - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

Dumbass, it has not even been indicted yet.
You are about as stupid as a box of rocks.
Civics class 101 for you, back to 6th grade.

 

[Si modo]

....

Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.

....

Section 3 of the law says his actions ARE covered.

You should read that section.

 

[Ravi]

Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you. The law covers Zimmerman 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.

The burden of proof is on you to how how Martin fit those criteria.

Here's a case that was in today's paper for contrast. A man was ruled immune from prosecution for killing a burglar that he caught in the act. Notice that a judge made the determination. In Zimmerman's case, it never got to a judge to decide.

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decision - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

Dumbass, it has not even been indicted yet.
You are about as stupid as a box of rocks.
Civics class 101 for you, back to 6th grade.

You really don't know what you're talking about. In Zimmerman's case, the DA and/or the police department made the decision to not press charges. Under the stand your ground law, only a judge has the authority to make that decision.

 

[Si modo]

and Zimmerman and the police never said Zimmerman shot Martin because Zimmerman thought Martin was about to commit a crime.

so reading and comprehension is not in your back of tricks?

Reading comprehension is well within my grasp, but not yours, apparently. Zimmerman pursued Martin on the false believe that Martin was "up to no good." Such a scenario does not invoke application of the stand your ground law. Stand your ground applies to when a the person against whom force is used is actually engaged in an illegal entry. Zimmerman's actions are not covered under the stand your ground law.



Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.

I wonder why anyone bothered even playing a football team with a "fragile twig" on it.

in fear for his life while being beaten down by Trayvon Martin, a 6'3" young man.

Martin was 150 pounds. At his height he was a fragile twig, easily broken. I'm only 5'7" and I weigh 160. At 5'9" Zimmerman is over 200 pounds. It's ridiculous to think that Martin would have been able to take Zimmerman down with one punch, as Martin claims.

"He was fragile twig, easily broken"
You are a joke.

He pulled 150 lbs out of some orifice, as well.

 

[saveliberty]

and Zimmerman and the police never said Zimmerman shot Martin because Zimmerman thought Martin was about to commit a crime.

so reading and comprehension is not in your back of tricks?

Reading comprehension is well within my grasp, but not yours, apparently. Zimmerman pursued Martin on the false believe that Martin was "up to no good." Such a scenario does not invoke application of the stand your ground law. Stand your ground applies to when a the person against whom force is used is actually engaged in an illegal entry. Zimmerman's actions are not covered under the stand your ground law.



Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.

in fear for his life while being beaten down by Trayvon Martin, a 6'3" young man.

Martin was 150 pounds. At his height he was a fragile twig, easily broken. I'm only 5'7" and I weigh 160. At 5'9" Zimmerman is over 200 pounds. It's ridiculous to think that Martin would have been able to take Zimmerman down with one punch, as Martin claims.

"He was fragile twig, easily broken"
You are a joke.

Depends how the 200 pounds is distributed. I'm 5'9" and 195. A 6'3" 150 pound person is going to get his ass kicked messing with me. Difference might be, my waist is a 32; chest 44 and Mr. Zimmerman might be a 40 for both. He probably felt tougher with that gun though.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Marc, don't you believe now that the initial media reports were one sided and they should have waited until the evidence was collected before the rush to judgment?

I am not condoning what Zimmerman did or didn't do or making up my mind yet as I have not seen ALL the evidence or probably anywhere near all of the evidence but it is very clear Marc that the initial reports on this were not true. Initial reports had Zimmerman gunning this kid down in cold blood and we know now that part is not true. There was a fight and Zimmerman pulled the gun when he was on the ground and shot him.
And there is evidence that Martin saw the gun before the fight but maybe Zimmerman threatened him with it, who knows? Maybe Martin felt like HIS life was in danger if a gun was pulled on him. Could be that way also as NO one knows. Could be that he was acting in fear of his life after seeing the gun. In his mind seeing a gun pulled on him meant that the gun was pulled TO BE USED ON HIM.
We just do not know. As a result of all of this there is no question in my mind the initial claims of "police corruption" and "they are not doing anything" are bogus to the core.
Both parties deserve the presumption of innocence in this case and Zimmerman did not get that after the circus side show started.

No, I don't believe the media is hyping this up out of proportion.

We have an armed adult, killing an unarmed kid.

We have a man that was told not to pursue the kid.

We have a man that pursued the kid.

We have a kid that was now gunned down dead.

Had the adult man followed the instructions of the authorities and not pursue or discontinue his pursuit of the kid, who had EVERY RIGHT to be where he was, the kid would not be dead.

All of the above are facts.

How could such a man not be arrested with all the above?

How could such a man have a gun in the first place?

I believe these are the main points the media is talking about and questions being asked in the media.

Those are all fair.

He was NEVER told not to pursue the kid. If he was, 911 operators are not authorized to make those demands anyway. Why do you distort the truth. "You do not have to" is what he was told. Distortion #1 by Marc.
Media has misprepresented most of the facts and not reported many others.
Distortion #2.
There is no duty to arrest anyone until a grand jury meets in most jurisdictions in America.
Distortion #3.
He had A LICENSE to carry the guy.
Distortion #4 by Marc.
"gunned down" That is a lie Marc and you know it. The gun was fired with Martin on top of Zimmerman. Lie #1 by Marc.

Your mind is made up as you are bitter, biased and prejudiced.
I thought you were different. I am open to the evidence as possibly Martin had the gun waved in his face before he took Zimmerman to the ground. To me that is self defense and Martin would be okay doing it. I have an open mind.
You do not and would be unfit to serve on any jury, especially this one.

I am open to the evidence as possibly Martin had the gun waved in his face before he took Zimmerman to the ground. To me that is self defense and Martin would be okay doing it. I have an open mind.

With all the media attention and racially motivated actions I wonder why they haven't play with that angle?

 

[saveliberty]

Hope the police are working on this case as hard as we all are.

 

[Si modo]

Reading comprehension is well within my grasp, but not yours, apparently. Zimmerman pursued Martin on the false believe that Martin was "up to no good." Such a scenario does not invoke application of the stand your ground law. Stand your ground applies to when a the person against whom force is used is actually engaged in an illegal entry. Zimmerman's actions are not covered under the stand your ground law.



Zimmerman claims self defense. But his actions are not covered under the law.



Martin was 150 pounds. At his height he was a fragile twig, easily broken. I'm only 5'7" and I weigh 160. At 5'9" Zimmerman is over 200 pounds. It's ridiculous to think that Martin would have been able to take Zimmerman down with one punch, as Martin claims.

"He was fragile twig, easily broken"
You are a joke.

Depends how the 200 pounds is distributed. I'm 5'9" and 195. A 6'3" 150 pound person is going to get his ass kicked messing with me. Difference might be, my waist is a 32; chest 44 and Mr. Zimmerman might be a 40 for both. He probably felt tougher with that gun though.

Where are you getting that Martin was 6'3" and 150 lbs?

The cop report says he was 6' and 160 lbs.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is what I would be focusing on as a prosecution investigator as I mentioned earlier.

If Zimmerman HAD THE GUN OUT in his pursuit then the proximate cause of the death is the gun being out. His life WAS IN NO DANGER in the pursuit.

And if it was not out then how can someone be arrested if they pull a gun after they have been attacked?

You folks need to understand THE LAW. Just because you do not like it does not make your opinion valid.
Ignorance of the law is NEVER A DEFENSE. Government never has a duty to report the law or inform the public of the law as that is the duty of the citizen.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hope the police are working on this case as hard as we all are.

Yeah no shit.