St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

[iceberg]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.

that wasn't a neighborhood. it was private property. if you have zero respect for others property and accomplishments then don't expect for anyone to respect anything of yours.

now you're free to explain why you are condoning the violence going on right now.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

Where is this "arrested for abuse of power"? Are you making up laws to fit the agenda?

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglar
3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.

No it isn't.

The little fat dude had a cop fantasy. And it turns out Zimmerman is a real piece of shit wife abusing drunk driving asshole who is by all metrics a ******* loser who was playing cop to make himself feel like a tough guy

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was inhis locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

The fact that Trayvon Martin had a history of breaking into people's homes and stealing things...which was part of the reason he had been suspended from his High School obviously makes George Zimmerman's suspicions of him more credible. Martin wasn't an "innocent" no matter how the Main Stream Media and his family tried to portray him!

That had nothing to do with him walking on the street the night Zimmerman killed him.

He had no stolen property on him

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

No.....Martin was not standing his ground......he was free and clear of Zimmerman....as the girl in court stated.....from the phone conversation she said Martin said he lost the Homo cracker somewhere in the complex.........there was no Stand Your Ground issue...he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

Moron....the 911 operator is not a police officer and can't give any order to anyone.....and from the recordings, Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was going back to his car to meet the police......

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was inhis locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

Yes....I agree...........that happened where his mother lived.....it was why she sent him to his father's home...she could not control him and was afraid he was becoming a thug.

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglar
3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.

No it isn't.

The little fat dude had a cop fantasy. And it turns out Zimmerman is a real piece of shit wife abusing drunk driving asshole who is by all metrics a ******* loser who was playing cop to make himself feel like a tough guy

And that, too, has zero to do with what happened that night.

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

No.....Martin was not standing his ground......he was free and clear of Zimmerman....as the girl in court stated.....from the phone conversation she said Martin said he lost the Homo cracker somewhere in the complex.........there was no Stand Your Ground issue...he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Because Zimmerman was obviously a threat as exhibited by his stalking.

Where I grew up if some asshole was tailing me in a car for blocks then got out and started chasing me Sure as ******* shit I would be fearing for my safety.

You don't have to be armed in order to stop what you perceive as a threat to your safety

 

[kyzr]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

Where is this "arrested for abuse of power"? Are you making up laws to fit the agenda?

Can DAs ignore state laws and charge people as they see fits their political agenda, anti-gun for example?
Kim didn't prosecute Jussie Smolette, but is looking to prosecute the McClosky's for defending their home?
WTF?

 

[Blues Man]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglarAnd no one saw the beginning of the altercation


3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.

No it isn't.

The little fat dude had a cop fantasy. And it turns out Zimmerman is a real piece of shit wife abusing drunk driving asshole who is by all metrics a ******* loser who was playing cop to make himself feel like a tough guy

And that, too, has zero to do with what happened that night.

He was a loser with a cop fantasy.
And no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation

New Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know | TIME.com

The most relevant new pieces of information in the trial of George Zimmerman from the the Florida special prosecutor's new 183-page report.

newsfeed.time.com

There are so far no witnesses to the beginning of the confrontation.

Police canvassed the neighborhood to find people who could tell them what they saw, and every eyewitness told police they saw Martin and Zimmerman fighting but that they didn’t know how it started

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.

Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the ******* race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.

What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours

1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.

The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.

What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.

1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglarAnd no one saw the beginning of the altercation


3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.

No it isn't.

The little fat dude had a cop fantasy. And it turns out Zimmerman is a real piece of shit wife abusing drunk driving asshole who is by all metrics a ******* loser who was playing cop to make himself feel like a tough guy

And that, too, has zero to do with what happened that night.

He was a loser with a cop fantasy.
And no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation

New Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know | TIME.com

The most relevant new pieces of information in the trial of George Zimmerman from the the Florida special prosecutor's new 183-page report.

newsfeed.time.com

There are so far no witnesses to the beginning of the confrontation.

Police canvassed the neighborhood to find people who could tell them what they saw, and every eyewitness told police they saw Martin and Zimmerman fighting but that they didn’t know how it started

He was back at the entrance to the complex near the parking lot, you doofus......and the girl who gave testimony stated Martin was clear of Zimmerman.........they were not even near each other you doofus.

 

[2aguy]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?

1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.

I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.

MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.

No.....Martin was not standing his ground......he was free and clear of Zimmerman....as the girl in court stated.....from the phone conversation she said Martin said he lost the Homo cracker somewhere in the complex.........there was no Stand Your Ground issue...he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Because Zimmerman was obviously a threat as exhibited by his stalking.

Where I grew up if some asshole was tailing me in a car for blocks then got out and started chasing me Sure as ******* shit I would be fearing for my safety.

You don't have to be armed in order to stop what you perceive as a threat to your safety

You dumb shit.......Martin told the girl on the phone he lost the guy in the complex....she testified to that under oath....the prosecution put her on the stand, not the defense.....so he could have simply walked the short distance to his father's home and been done with it...

He circled back and attacked Zimmerman.....

 

[BULLDOG]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....

You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....

Nobody was on their property dumb ass.

And why do you think that is sparky? Could it be that the homeowners were armed?

Doubtful, because they weren't on any of the neghbor's property either. They were walking down the road, I think they said headed to the Mayor's house. That's where they went. They showed their signs and chanted a couple of things and then left. Just like they intended from the first. The gun nuts didn't stop anything. The protesters had no intention of entering anyone's property, and in fact, never entered anybody's property. The gun nuts just made asses of themselves. You do know that dozens of the neighbors signed a letter telling them to quit embarrassing them, don't you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....

You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....

Nobody was on their property dumb ass.

And why do you think that is sparky? Could it be that the homeowners were armed?

Doubtful, because they weren't on any of the neghbor's property either. They were walking down the road, I think they said headed to the Mayor's house. That's where they went. They showed their signs and chanted a couple of things and then left. Just like they intended from the first. The gun nuts didn't stop anything. The protesters had no intention of entering anyone's property, and in fact, never entered anybody's property. The gun nuts just made asses of themselves. You do know that dozens of the neighbors signed a letter telling them to quit embarrassing them, don't you?

You are the dumbest ************ that God ever gave breath to! Everyone on this message board should ignore you like I will do. You are too ******* dumb to carry on an adult conversation!

 

[BULLDOG]

I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."

The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....

You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....

Nobody was on their property dumb ass.

And why do you think that is sparky? Could it be that the homeowners were armed?

Doubtful, because they weren't on any of the neghbor's property either. They were walking down the road, I think they said headed to the Mayor's house. That's where they went. They showed their signs and chanted a couple of things and then left. Just like they intended from the first. The gun nuts didn't stop anything. The protesters had no intention of entering anyone's property, and in fact, never entered anybody's property. The gun nuts just made asses of themselves. You do know that dozens of the neighbors signed a letter telling them to quit embarrassing them, don't you?

You are the dumbest ************ that God ever gave breath to! Everyone on this message board should ignore you like I will do. You are too ******* dumb to carry on an adult conversation!

So which part of my post do you doubt? I understand you being disappointed that it wasn't a riot out to burn down those gun nut's house, but it just wasn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The trespassers should have been shot when they broke through the gate.

Had they shot the rioters, they would be in jail.

When you find that your laws don't protect you from marauding vandals who will rape, rob, burn, assault, and murder you ; but protect the criminals from YOU, then you know your society is doomed.

 

[BULLDOG]

The trespassers should have been shot when they broke through the gate.

Had they shot the rioters, they would be in jail.

When you find that your laws don't protect you from marauding vandals who will rape, rob, burn, assault, and murder you ; but protect the criminals from YOU, then you know your society is doomed.

What indications did those two gun nuts have that they were going to be raped, robbed, assaulted, or murdered?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not sure this family was a doing a "stand your ground", more like a we are capable and willing to "defend our lives and property" from potential danger..

And yet the Communist commandants of St. Louis still were going to charge THEM. We must reconquer America.

 

[BULLDOG]

Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 357308

Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says

Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor

www.ksdk.com

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)

You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.

that wasn't a neighborhood. it was private property. if you have zero respect for others property and accomplishments then don't expect for anyone to respect anything of yours.

now you're free to explain why you are condoning the violence going on right now.

Yes, it was a neighborhood.