WATCH: Ferguson Protesters Chant ‘We’re Ready for War’

[JQPublic1]

I am not only judging white America for what happened 350 years ago, I am judging you for every thing you did in between leading up to NOW.
Your sordid history is the object of my ire. Oh, I am not talking about the few white abolitionists who surfaced along the way and the few real Christian altruists with power enough to finally legislate manumission for Black slaves. I am talking about the general mass of white people who conspired, cheated, killed , and did anything possible to prevent Black equality.. People like you are still trying to do the same thing your ancestors did. You are "conservatives" alright,,,you want to conserve the past where Blacks were docile and meek and could be used or abused at a whim!

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Whites,

I am not only judging white America for what happened 350 years ago, I am judging you for every thing you did in between leading up to NOW.
Your sordid history is the object of my ire. Oh, I am not talking about the few white abolitionists who surfaced along the way and the few real Christian altruists with power enough to finally legislate manumission for Black slaves. I am talking about the general mass of white people who conspired, cheated, killed , and did anything possible to prevent Black equality.. People like you are still trying to do the same thing your ancestors did. You are "conservatives" alright,,,you want to conserve the past where Blacks were docile and meek and could be used or abused at a whim!

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Who do you think elected and kept electing those "few whites" who made those policies?

The nation that elected JFK was 88% white.

Stop hiding behind that :nation " bull crap. People like you would never have voted for JFK if you had an inkling that he would respond to MLK the way he did! If you voted for him it wasn't because you loved blacks!

People like me did vote for JFK, and all the other Presidents since who have ALL been very clear in their support for equal Civil Rights for blacks.


You are denying that simple truth, because you want to judge White America by the actions of white guys 350 years ago.

who the hell do you think you are talking to? I might have been born yesterday but I stayed up all night.

Do you bother to read my responses to you. If not end this dialogue right now. I already told you that the reference to 350 years was just a starting point. I am sure even YOU know that the black guy named Martin Luther wasn't alive 350 years ago. Heh heh heh!

Tel me something chum? Why was Civil Rights legislation necessary in the first place if you and the white voters of yesteryear were so congenial towards blacks? Your sudden "altruism" sounds like an oxymoron in comparison with the "conservatism" we see today as well as inthe past.

 

[sealybobo]

John McNeil Freed After Being Convicted Of Shooting Home Intruder News One

"McNeil and Epp had a long-running feud that intensified as Epp was wrapping up construction of the house for the McNeils. The McNeils moved in and planned to spend their first night in their new home on Dec. 5, even though Epp had a few items still on his to-do list.

McNeil never denied he shot Epp in the driveway of his new home. He said he was rushing home because his 19-year-old son had called him to report a strange man in their back yard had threatened to cut him with a box cutter.

McNeil was on the telephone with the 911 when he pulled into his neighborhood. He told the 911 operator to send someone quickly because he intended to confront Epp, according to a recording played in court.

The operator urged him to stay in his car and wait for police.

“When you get a call from your kids that somebody’s got a knife pulled on them, threatening them, the first thing you want to do is get home and protect your kid, ” John McNeil testified. “So I said I was going to whip his ass.”

McNeil got out of his car with a gun and confronted Epp as the contractor walked over from the house next door. Witnesses said Epp didn’t stop even after McNeil fired a shot into the ground. The second time he fired, McNeil shot the contractor in the face with a hollow-point bullet.

Because Epp had a knife in his front pants pocket McNeil’s lawyer argued then and now that the shooting was justified."

So McNeil went there looking for a fight (can't say I blame him too much for that frankly) and Epp basically said you want a piece lets go "whoop my ass" and then McNeil, despite the fact that Epp's knife was in his pocket, shot him in the face.

... It's not stand your ground if you go in looking for a fight, it's not defending yourself if you go in looking for a fight. THAT is why McNeil went to jail...

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Do we really want racist white psychos antagonizing blacks into fights so they can murder them?

 

[Geaux4it]

I participated in a shark hunt once in Waikiki to rid the tourist of a Tiger Shark. Wonder if the city will ever invite Americans in to 'help' out and tidy things up.

Southwest flies to St Louis then just a short drive to the range

-Geaux

 

[JQPublic1]

How do you explain why John McNeil, a successful Black business man, was sent to prison for killing a white man under even more compelling circumstances than those faed by GZ? Does Stand Your Ground only apply to White people?

When police investigated the death of Brian Epp, they determined that John McNeil was merely acting in self-defense when he shot Epp for allegedly loitering on his property, threatening him and his 19-year-old son with a knife. They didn’t charge him with any crime. But 274 days later, McNeil was prosecuted and sentenced to life in prison,



You see, here is a black man who didn't have a criminal record at all and was a college graduate.

HIs crime: Killing a no account white man who attacked him. A year after the police cleared him, a racist DA and probably an all white jury collaborated to destroy a good black family. Double standards seem to abound in Florida.

John McNeil Freed After Being Convicted Of Shooting Home Intruder News One

"McNeil and Epp had a long-running feud that intensified as Epp was wrapping up construction of the house for the McNeils. The McNeils moved in and planned to spend their first night in their new home on Dec. 5, even though Epp had a few items still on his to-do list.

McNeil never denied he shot Epp in the driveway of his new home. He said he was rushing home because his 19-year-old son had called him to report a strange man in their back yard had threatened to cut him with a box cutter.

McNeil was on the telephone with the 911 when he pulled into his neighborhood. He told the 911 operator to send someone quickly because he intended to confront Epp, according to a recording played in court.

The operator urged him to stay in his car and wait for police.

“When you get a call from your kids that somebody’s got a knife pulled on them, threatening them, the first thing you want to do is get home and protect your kid, ” John McNeil testified. “So I said I was going to whip his ass.”

McNeil got out of his car with a gun and confronted Epp as the contractor walked over from the house next door. Witnesses said Epp didn’t stop even after McNeil fired a shot into the ground. The second time he fired, McNeil shot the contractor in the face with a hollow-point bullet.

Because Epp had a knife in his front pants pocket McNeil’s lawyer argued then and now that the shooting was justified."

So McNeil went there looking for a fight (can't say I blame him too much for that frankly) and Epp basically said you want a piece lets go "whoop my ass" and then McNeil, despite the fact that Epp's knife was in his pocket, shot him in the face.

... It's not stand your ground if you go in looking for a fight, it's not defending yourself if you go in looking for a fight. THAT is why McNeil went to jail...

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

You continue to view the situation through the eyes of GZ and white people. You don't even consider the humanity of TM and the fear that was coursing through his young mind. No, to you he has been de humanized and relegated to "thug " status so anything he felt or did is immaterial. His perceptions of GZ didn't matter to the cops, the prosecution or the jurors.

Not once did Martin's Stand Your Ground right's surface during the trial.
'
When he ambushed the guy chasing him, he had every right to do so.
I don't blame TM for punching first and trying to kill the son of a ***** by saming his head into the curb, What was he to do , wait for the chaser to make the first move?
WHen he did stand his ground, however, the white mind turned TM into the aggressor and vilified him as a thug attacking a white man. Stand Your Ground was turned on it's head and GZ came away with the prize because he was armed. He should have been killed, not TM!

 

[Correll]

John McNeil Freed After Being Convicted Of Shooting Home Intruder News One

"McNeil and Epp had a long-running feud that intensified as Epp was wrapping up construction of the house for the McNeils. The McNeils moved in and planned to spend their first night in their new home on Dec. 5, even though Epp had a few items still on his to-do list.

McNeil never denied he shot Epp in the driveway of his new home. He said he was rushing home because his 19-year-old son had called him to report a strange man in their back yard had threatened to cut him with a box cutter.

McNeil was on the telephone with the 911 when he pulled into his neighborhood. He told the 911 operator to send someone quickly because he intended to confront Epp, according to a recording played in court.

The operator urged him to stay in his car and wait for police.

“When you get a call from your kids that somebody’s got a knife pulled on them, threatening them, the first thing you want to do is get home and protect your kid, ” John McNeil testified. “So I said I was going to whip his ass.”

McNeil got out of his car with a gun and confronted Epp as the contractor walked over from the house next door. Witnesses said Epp didn’t stop even after McNeil fired a shot into the ground. The second time he fired, McNeil shot the contractor in the face with a hollow-point bullet.

Because Epp had a knife in his front pants pocket McNeil’s lawyer argued then and now that the shooting was justified."

So McNeil went there looking for a fight (can't say I blame him too much for that frankly) and Epp basically said you want a piece lets go "whoop my ass" and then McNeil, despite the fact that Epp's knife was in his pocket, shot him in the face.

... It's not stand your ground if you go in looking for a fight, it's not defending yourself if you go in looking for a fight. THAT is why McNeil went to jail...

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

 

[sealybobo]

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Whites,

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Who do you think elected and kept electing those "few whites" who made those policies?

The nation that elected JFK was 88% white.

Stop hiding behind that :nation " bull crap. People like you would never have voted for JFK if you had an inkling that he would respond to MLK the way he did! If you voted for him it wasn't because you loved blacks!

People like me did vote for JFK, and all the other Presidents since who have ALL been very clear in their support for equal Civil Rights for blacks.


You are denying that simple truth, because you want to judge White America by the actions of white guys 350 years ago.

who the hell do you think you are talking to? I might have been born yesterday but I stayed up all night.

Do you bother to read my responses to you. If not end this dialogue right now. I already told you that the reference to 350 years was just a starting point. I am sure even YOU know that the black guy named Martin Luther wasn't alive 350 years ago. Heh heh heh!

Tel me something chum? Why was Civil Rights legislation necessary in the first place if you and the white voters of yesteryear were so congenial towards blacks? Your sudden "altruism" sounds like an oxymoron in comparison with the "conservatism" we see today as well as inthe past.

Same thing for unions, minimum wage, social security, labor laws, healthcare reform.

These guys act like these things RUINED America when the fact is they were all things that were passed to try to fix what was already wrong with America. Civil rights and affirmative action needed to be done. And we still have a lot of work to do.

 

[JQPublic1]

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Do we really want racist white psychos antagonizing blacks into fights so they can murder them?

Most decent citizens do not want that! But an increasing number of white males seem determined to do just that...many f them in cops clothing!

 

[JQPublic1]

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

TM was taller but Zimmerman out weighed him by far. I don't care that GZ was screaming for help and that he had been knocked on his ass. He attacked TM when he started chasing him for no apparent reason that TM was aware of. I just wish TM would have killed him before he got to that gun. TM was just standing his ground but didn't have sufficient weaponry to finish the job.

 

[Correll]

John McNeil Freed After Being Convicted Of Shooting Home Intruder News One

"McNeil and Epp had a long-running feud that intensified as Epp was wrapping up construction of the house for the McNeils. The McNeils moved in and planned to spend their first night in their new home on Dec. 5, even though Epp had a few items still on his to-do list.

McNeil never denied he shot Epp in the driveway of his new home. He said he was rushing home because his 19-year-old son had called him to report a strange man in their back yard had threatened to cut him with a box cutter.

McNeil was on the telephone with the 911 when he pulled into his neighborhood. He told the 911 operator to send someone quickly because he intended to confront Epp, according to a recording played in court.

The operator urged him to stay in his car and wait for police.

“When you get a call from your kids that somebody’s got a knife pulled on them, threatening them, the first thing you want to do is get home and protect your kid, ” John McNeil testified. “So I said I was going to whip his ass.”

McNeil got out of his car with a gun and confronted Epp as the contractor walked over from the house next door. Witnesses said Epp didn’t stop even after McNeil fired a shot into the ground. The second time he fired, McNeil shot the contractor in the face with a hollow-point bullet.

Because Epp had a knife in his front pants pocket McNeil’s lawyer argued then and now that the shooting was justified."

So McNeil went there looking for a fight (can't say I blame him too much for that frankly) and Epp basically said you want a piece lets go "whoop my ass" and then McNeil, despite the fact that Epp's knife was in his pocket, shot him in the face.

... It's not stand your ground if you go in looking for a fight, it's not defending yourself if you go in looking for a fight. THAT is why McNeil went to jail...

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

You continue to view the situation through the eyes of GZ and white people. You don't even consider the humanity of TM and the fear that was coursing through his young mind. No, to you he has been de humanized and relegated to "thug " status so anything he felt or did is immaterial. His perceptions of GZ didn't matter to the cops, the prosecution or the jurors.

Not once did Martin's Stand Your Ground right's surface during the trial.
'
When he ambushed the guy chasing him, he had every right to do so.
I don't blame TM for punching first and trying to kill the son of a ***** by saming his head into the curb, What was he to do , wait for the chaser to make the first move?
WHen he did stand his ground, however, the white mind turned TM into the aggressor and vilified him as a thug attacking a white man. Stand Your Ground was turned on it's head and GZ came away with the prize because he was armed. He should have been killed, not TM!

You continue to try to use Race to defend criminal behavior.

When Treyvon attacked Zimmerman he made himself the Aggressor.

This in not something that the "white mind" did, this is something that Martin did. It is part of the definition of "Aggressor"


Being followed is not justification for the use of deadly force.

 

[Correll]

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

TM was taller but Zimmerman out weighed him by far. I don't care that GZ was screaming for help and that he had been knocked on his ass. He attacked TM when he started chasing him for no apparent reason that TM was aware of. I just wish TM would have killed him before he got to that gun. TM was just standing his ground but didn't have sufficient weaponry to finish the job.

Following someone is not the same as attacking him.

YOu are basing your defense of Martin on his skin color, not his actions.

 

[Correll]

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Whites,

No, you are not.

You are ignoring the fact that Civil Rights for Blacks have been the consensus in White America, since the dems gave up the fight back in the 60s.


You are ignoring the last 40-50 years, where "the general masses of white people" has been bending over backwards supporting black equality.

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Who do you think elected and kept electing those "few whites" who made those policies?

The nation that elected JFK was 88% white.

Stop hiding behind that :nation " bull crap. People like you would never have voted for JFK if you had an inkling that he would respond to MLK the way he did! If you voted for him it wasn't because you loved blacks!

People like me did vote for JFK, and all the other Presidents since who have ALL been very clear in their support for equal Civil Rights for blacks.


You are denying that simple truth, because you want to judge White America by the actions of white guys 350 years ago.

who the hell do you think you are talking to? I might have been born yesterday but I stayed up all night.

Do you bother to read my responses to you. If not end this dialogue right now. I already told you that the reference to 350 years was just a starting point. I am sure even YOU know that the black guy named Martin Luther wasn't alive 350 years ago. Heh heh heh!

Tel me something chum? Why was Civil Rights legislation necessary in the first place if you and the white voters of yesteryear were so congenial towards blacks? Your sudden "altruism" sounds like an oxymoron in comparison with the "conservatism" we see today as well as inthe past.

And where is the ending point?

Certainly not today. Certainly not 20 years ago. YOu've dismissed the last 50 years.


"Sudden altruism"? Nothing sudden about it. The debate and conflict over the issue is all their in the history books.

 

[JQPublic1]

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

You continue to view the situation through the eyes of GZ and white people. You don't even consider the humanity of TM and the fear that was coursing through his young mind. No, to you he has been de humanized and relegated to "thug " status so anything he felt or did is immaterial. His perceptions of GZ didn't matter to the cops, the prosecution or the jurors.

Not once did Martin's Stand Your Ground right's surface during the trial.
'
When he ambushed the guy chasing him, he had every right to do so.
I don't blame TM for punching first and trying to kill the son of a ***** by saming his head into the curb, What was he to do , wait for the chaser to make the first move?
WHen he did stand his ground, however, the white mind turned TM into the aggressor and vilified him as a thug attacking a white man. Stand Your Ground was turned on it's head and GZ came away with the prize because he was armed. He should have been killed, not TM!

You continue to try to use Race to defend criminal behavior.

When Treyvon attacked Zimmerman he made himself the Aggressor.

This in not something that the "white mind" did, this is something that Martin did. It is part of the definition of "Aggressor"


Being followed is not justification for the use of deadly force.

We aren't talking about "following." I am talking about chasing..YOU are talking about following. There is a difference. Chasing is an attack
that implies an impending threat of bodily harm. TM therefore was covered under the SOG law and attempted to carry it out. He was out gunned. The aggression began when GZ gave chase not when Martin STOOD HIS GROUND!

 

[JQPublic1]

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

TM was taller but Zimmerman out weighed him by far. I don't care that GZ was screaming for help and that he had been knocked on his ass. He attacked TM when he started chasing him for no apparent reason that TM was aware of. I just wish TM would have killed him before he got to that gun. TM was just standing his ground but didn't have sufficient weaponry to finish the job.

Following someone is not the same as attacking him.

YOu are basing your defense of Martin on his skin color, not his actions.

See post 492

 

[sealybobo]

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

I'm a tough guy and I get scared/nervous whenever I get in a fight. It's natural/normal. Its healthy. If you don't then you are clearly under estimating your opponent and you never know how tough someone is just based on appearance. Plus in my experience blacks aren't that tough in fist fights. They might be athletic but most of them don't know how to fight. No ground game. ESPECIALLY when it's a kid. Trevon didn't even have man strength yet. How old was he 17? That's a good couple years before you get that man strength.

I was an all state wrestler when I was 17. I remember the first time taking the car out by myself. I made a mistake and was blocking the left turn lane and this 20 something year old bumped my car and cursed me. I was scared. Why was I scared? I was 160 lbs of all muscle, knew how to wrestle and fight. Why was I afraid of that MAN? Because I was still a boy.

Zimmerman is a murderer. You are seeing this from white eyes my friend. If it was your kid you'd see things differently.

And I'll admit I think it should be ok to question someone who doesn't belong to your gated community. Just somehow I think the whole incident went down different than the way you think it went down. You're defending a murderer.

 

[sealybobo]

Then why didn't Zimmerman? He was told to stay put too.

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

Zimmerman was 31. When I was 31 I doubt there was a 17 year old on this planet that could take me. Maybe Mike Tyson but Trevon was no Mike Tyson.

 

[EverCurious]

I have keyboard face from falling asleep at my desk.... For the record I'm blaming JQ for making me rehash, find, cite, and explain all this crap.

(EDIT - I give up on fixing the stupid quotes, I hate this board's interface sometimes lol)

Back to the Zimmerman and McNeil cases:

Read the ruling and you will understand WHY the case I presented and Zimmerman are different. You are being intentionally dumb to not admit the differences and intentionally ignoring truth in order to, ultimately, promote racism, and frankly I find it disgusting. I'm tired of games, I'm tired of bullshit, and I'm tired of lies.

~ George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin s death - CNN.com

I've read the ruling and I've heard all the arguments you just posited in favor of Zimmerman. Nothing new here folks. But beware: Evercurious is tired of anything that doesn't fit his/her worldview. Look, Ec, your disdain for lies isn't any more valued than mine or that of anyone else.

I hope you understand that what you call lies, doesn't necessarily make it so. I haven't lied in my encapsulation of events concerning the Martin/Zimmerman affair but I do have an opinion that is different from yours concerning who was actually standing their ground.

Unlike you, I examined the events through the eyes of both GZ AND Martin as best I could with the evidence available to me. You simply imagined what poor GZ was thinking when he saw that "thug."Right?

I imagined that I was Trayvon walking in the rain with candy and a drink when some shady looking character started shadowing me.( I have already laid out the order of events that followed up to the chase.)

Fearful, I looked back and saw the fat stranger (GZ) chasing after me.

I decided to hide in the shadows and wait for the strange white dude to pass by so I can confront him and ask him what is his problem. (stop)

Martin is armed only with his fists but he decides to stand his ground. He feels threatened and is therefore covered under the SOG laws of Florida and can now use deadly force to resist his attacker...the man chasing him. Under the cover of darkness and under the circumstances, Martin had every right to defend himself by any means necessary including deadly force. Too bad he didn't have a gun or a bowie knife.

Martin probably had no idea burglaries had taken place in the community and he was not concerned initially with anything more than getting home safely. GZ changed all of that by putting TM in fear and ultimately losing to an armed psychopath when he decided to stand his ground.

I was never straight up on GZ's "side," nor ever automatically the “white guys” side in any ******* media shit storm case we’ve had, so don't be flinging that bullshit at me – Here is /all/ I have /ever/ said on Zimmerman on USMB http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/3913168/?q=zimmerman&o=relevance&c[user][0]=50158

I could also damn near pull off an Obama style, "that could be my son" statement, so don't presume I'm "just another racist" in how I reviewed either of these cases either. My 20 year old son has to deal with these ******* racist assholes down in Vegas.

That ******* bullshit right there is exactly what I'm talking about, I am an ally in a true situation of racism, but you immediately choose to write me off as "racist" because /I/ don't agree with you on this one or that one. It is complete ******* bullshit that you just pulled out of your ass based on absolutely nothing, and frankly you're quite welcome to shove it right back in there if that’s how you’d like to play.

You brought these cases as a comparison between the two, I merely pointed out why the cases were /not/ the same, I didn’t give any real opinion on them. However, you seem to want to get into it, so here you go (I’m going to be polite and fold up the 20 whatever ******* pages for those who don’t want to scroll through it all every time they load this page of the thread):

In your viewpoint, it is okay to "hide in the bushes" and confront someone when you are supposedly in "fear for your life" and that, in your mind, is still "acting in self-defense"?

So look, we're ultimately talking about two random people on the street here. If two people are walking down the road, does the one in "front" typically presume that the person behind them is "following" them, and even if they /do/ feel that they are being followed, do they have the "right" to turn around and kick their ass for it?

I do not know of /any/ legal standing that could, in any way, shape, or form "entitle," or give you any right, to hide in the bushes then jump out and kick someone's ass for following you down a street, but that is what you are arguing here, that Martin had /that/ right. I disagree, like, a lot…


Maybe it is a cultural difference, but that is just /not/ a normal reaction for most people who are "afraid" of someone, it is a "violent" action, even if the intent [initially] was just to "confront" them verbally, it is /still/ an intentional act of "confrontation" and thus not a /legal/ act of "self-defense." I guess you want to say instinct right? Fight or flight, and Martin decided to “fight” instead of “flight”?

Okay, thing is, self-defense, implies, that you /had/ to use force to protect yourself. Even your own idea of what you think happened it is not self-defense. I'm going to give you a quick rundown of Florida's Stand Your Ground law from a lawyer there, because you are a bit off in your explaining and understanding of it.

Not that I expect Martin /knew/ the law nor had any clue about it – as I recall Martin had pretty just moved there because his mom "threw him out" for getting suspended from school, either for fighting or for marijuana possession depending on which version of his texts you want to go by. Either way, it’s unrealistic for anyone to think that Martin both knew, and acted, within the legal self-defense laws of Florida. But regardless:

Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013. (regarding home and car invasions)

Under Section 776.013(3), the “no duty of retreat” rule will not apply to a person who is engaged in an unlawful activity or is in a place where he or she has no right to be. Other provisions preclude a defendant from raising a self-defense claim altogether. Under Section 776.041, the justifications for the use of force do not apply if the accused is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:
(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.​

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.


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

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

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened 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 or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

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

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or

(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).

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

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

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195.


776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27; s. 5, ch. 2014-195.


776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—

(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195.


776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.


776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.


776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—

(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67; s. 8, ch. 2014-195.


776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.—

(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.

(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272; s. 9, ch. 2014-195.


776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—

(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.


776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.


776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.

(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:

(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:

1. Canteen purchases;

2. Telephone access;

3. Outdoor exercise;

4. Use of the library; and

5. Visitation.

(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.

(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.

History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.


776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.—

(1) Whenever the state attorney or statewide prosecutor dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document, or decides not to file an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be documented in writing and retained in the files of the state attorney or statewide prosecutor.

(2) Whenever a court dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be recorded in an order or memorandum, which shall be retained in the court’s records.

(3) Under either condition described in subsection (1) or subsection (2), the person accused may apply for a certificate of eligibility to expunge the associated criminal history record, pursuant to s. 943.0585(5), notwithstanding the eligibility requirements prescribed in s. 943.0585(1)(b) or (2).

~ http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

So, like I said, even under your own idea of what you think went down, being followed doesn't qualify for self-defense or stand your ground because there was absolutely no indication what-so-ever that Martin was in /any/ danger of being harmed even though Zim was following him.

For the sake of argument though, let’s go ahead and say Zim threw the first punch. Zim throws a punch, that does absolutely /no/ damage what-so-ever to Martin, there wasn’t a mark on the boy but the gun shot right? However, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume that somehow Martin was at that point so scared that Zim was going to beat his ass or kill him (maybe he saw the gun or w/e), that in that moment, he believed that his life was in immediate danger.

*Just for the record, Martin is considered, by law, as the initial aggressor because he “popped out of the bushes” on Zim, even if he was, as you’ve proposed, just intending to confront Zim about following him, and even if Zim threw the first punch - the fact that Martin confronted Zim at all, instead of just going home, puts him in the /legal/ standing of “initial aggressor” in the case.

That said, however, we’re going to play this out in the best light, presume that Martin didn’t pop out of the bushes on Zim. Hell, let’s even say that Zim caught up to Martin somehow and punched him in the back of the head “knock out game” style. ~ Because my whole point here is to show that the ruling has /nothing/ to do with race, and /everything/ to do with the law, alight? So Zim punches Martin in the back of the head and Martin is in fear for his life and “defends himself” - Now obviously Martin got the upper hand.

So, we have Martin sitting on Zim’s chest pounding his face "MMA style” according to the witnesses. We’re going to argue that Martin was in fear for his life when he “retaliated” against Zim, and was thus at that point authorized to claim self-defense:

776.012 (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force,against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.​

At this point there is simply no way that Martin is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm what-so-ever thus “deadly force” is most certainly /not/ reasonable. He can only use force in self-defense to the extent necessary to /defend/ himself - sitting on someone’s chest beating the shit out of them while they scream for help is absolutely /not ever/ defending oneself - it’s beating the shit out of someone… At absolute best, Martin could argue a heat of the moment tunnel vision kind of deal, but that’d be pretty tricky to win given the witness testimony and the fact that Martin didn’t appear to have any injuries. Either way though, it’s absolutely moronic to think that a jury just is going to pull that shit out of their ass in order to convict Zim of murder.

Zim on the other hand /is/ able to claim self-defense, even if he /had/ started the fight, because he’s made it pretty damn clear that he wants out of physical contact with Martin thus satisfying:

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.​

Now, Martin did /not/ stop even when Zim was yelling for help (reportedly MANY times according to witnesses.) Martin did not stop when said witness yelled at Martin and Zim that they were calling the cops. Zim cannot (b) “in good faith withdrew from physical contact” (because Martin is sitting on his chest.) Zim is (b) “making clear indication that he wished to withdrawal” and Martin has indeed “continued the use of force.” Zim has satisfied the requirements to claim self-defense, /even/ if he punched Martin first. He is very /clearly/ in a situation where he could use force to defend himself.

When it comes to the determination of /deadly force/, again Martin did /not/ stop when Zim was yelling for help, he did not stop when the witness yelled they were calling the cops. I, and the jury, believe that Zim had every reason to feel that his life was in danger in that situation. Now given that you apparently believe, "self-defense" is admissible if you confront someone merely for "following" you, then how the hell can you possibly /not/ see being pinned on your back and getting your face beat in “MMA style” as "self-defense," right?

So the bottom line is that even if you argue Martin was, at some point, scared of Zim and acting in “self-defense,” even if you argue that Zim threw the first punch at Martin, even if you argue that Martin saw the gun and was in fear of his life, everything reasonable I can possibly think of in Martin’s favor with what’s presented in the case – it all still comes down to Zim was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin.

That is why Zim wasn’t charged, not because of racism, but because Zim was acting in self-defense and there is absolutely no way they could charge him with murder - it was self-defense by /every/ possible stretch of the law.

The decision

The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.

Ultimately, they believed Zimmerman wasn't guilty of either charge. None of the jurors wanted to speak to the media after the verdict.

Yeah, yeah , yeah, and had Martin killed GZ all of the above would have been just as applicable.

Not according to the law based on the facts we have from the eyewitness.

However, had Martin killed Zim (and thus Zim’s story that corroborated well with the eyewitness testimony,) then sure he could have tried to argue for self-defense, maybe the tunnel vision/heat of the moment argument I suggested above. But I mean, so what?

And more to my entire point of posting the matter in the first place, exactly how does /that/ fact show that Zim was let off due to “racism”?

Now, and this feeds to another point of mine, /had/ that happened, if Martin had killed Zim, then no one outside of whatever ******* city Florida would have any clue who GZ and TM were. And I’ll rest my case on that point…[/quote]

Do you see the key difference from the McNeil case?

McNeil said on the recorded 911 call that he intended to "whip his ass" - now read the above reasons Zimmer went free again.

The jury in the McNeil case actually /DID/ agree with McNeil's actions to a point; he was in fear for his kids life, he was protecting his property, and he did fire a warning shot into the ground. That's why McNeil only got 6 years (instead of the typical 30 years or more.)

McNeil never said he was going to shoot or kill Epps. That is a key you seem to want to overlook. You are also ignorant of the fact that McNeil was initially absolved of wrongdoing and was free for nearly a year before being indicted, tried and sentenced to prison for LIFE not 6.

Don't let facts get in your way. He only did 6 due to the efforts of Black people who knew he was wrongully prosecuted and sentenced. Thank you NAACP

In 2006, McNeil was convicted for shooting Brian Epp on his property after Mr. Epp threatened his son with a box cutter and charged at John, with the weapon in his pocket. Two white investigating officers concluded that McNeil did not commit a crime, but 294 days after the incident McNeil was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison.

You are lying. So much for facts right? No court absolved McNeil of wrong doing, or ruled he had acted in self-defense, the police determined on the spot that it was self-defense and didn’t arrest him, sure.

Then Epp’s wife and friends convinced the DA to look at the case and present it to a grand jury - kind of like the officers believed <pick any racial outrage story> but the DA felt it was murder and indicted regardless. Or is that not allowed? If the police say it goes it goes then? Oh hell no, we know /that’s/ not the case. The DA sent the case to the grand jury and they charged him.


Jumping ahead to an article from 2012: “Cobb County’s District Attorney Pat Head said his review of the case led him to believe Epp was not a threat to McNeil and that the grand jury should review the facts.

Head said a grand jury, not him, decided McNeil should tried for murder.

…

Race, he said, did not factor into his decision making, an allegation leveled by the NAACP that has been advocating for John McNeil. “Anybody who knows me knows that’s an absolute lie,” Head said.

But to the NAACP, it smacked of selective prosecution. ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/was-it-self-defense-or-murder/nSpxR/

Here is another:

“For years, no one except their families and a few close friends seemed to notice — or perhaps care — about the circumstances of the 2005 death of Brian Epp and the murder conviction of the man who killed him, John McNeil.

Almost seven years later, however, the Epp-McNeil story is being played out by news organizations worldwide and on the Internet. It’s an example of how such attention can help create a movement, like the one centered on Georgia’s execution of Troy Davis a year ago and the stand-your-ground debate after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida earlier this year.

Like those cases, race is an element fueling at least some of the interest. Epp was white. McNeil is black.

The shooting in an upscale Kennesaw subdivision received scant media coverage once police decided McNeil was justified in shooting Epp. They concluded McNeil felt he was defending himself and his teenage son from the 43-year-old builder, and had not committed a crime.

“There was nothing that newsworthy about it,” said District Attorney Pat Head.

Media outlets didn’t notice when McNeil was indicted 294 days later, convicted of murder a few months later and sentenced to life in prison.

“The police never make the final decision about who to prosecute or what charges to prosecute,” Head said. “That final decision always rests with the prosecutor. The facts of this case is that it was a murder case and we presented it to a grand jury. And we presented it to 12 jurors and they all believed it was murder. And believed beyond a reasonable doubt.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/campaign-grows-to-free-georgia-man-in-stand-your-g/nSccS/


While I think the NAACP did the /right/ thing helping this guy out with self-defense here, they did it the wrong ******* way, and for the wrong ******* reason - when race bating became a “thing.” In a case that had /nothing/ to do with race despite the NAACP’s claims – and worse, they did it too late…


Let’s get into some NAACP lies though. “Self defense” like zimmer/martin? NOPE!

2013: “During the hearing, McNeil pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. McNeil was sentenced to seven years in prison and 13 years' probation on the manslaughter charge, but he was credited with seven years' time served and was released immediately.

The plea meant McNeil would soon be getting out of prison. He was serving life for the murder of Brian Epp more than seven years ago, a crime he and his supporters claimed was self-defense, a "stand your ground" case.” ~ http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/cobb-man-convicted-shooting-intruder-wins-freedom/nWMz5/

O.C.G.A. 16-5-2 (2010)
16-5-2. Voluntary manslaughter

(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources. ~ http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-2/

Not stand your ground, not self-defense, A CRIME OF PASSION. Now that’s brilliant, whoever advised McNeil on that did great. Except that he had to accept a guilty plea.

NAACP lied to their people unfortunately; that it was racism, that it was an injustice of “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine,” that it was simply because McNeil was black. Let’s get even deeper, because the whole reason the NAACP says they got involved in is because it was racism right?

Back to 2006 and the original case, McNeil is claiming self-defense:

It doesn’t matter if he said he was going to kill Epp or just whip his ass, McNeil is still the aggressor. He did not /have/ to confront Epp, he could have called his son and made sure he was okay, he could have waited the few minutes for the police to show up like 911 told him on the phone, but he didn’t, he chose to confront Epp with a gun, and that makes him the aggressor in the eyes of the law.

Now understand, the supposed racial shit here? McNeil was found to be aggressor, and Epp not a threat until McNeil confronted him, by not only the grand jury who indicted him, but the jury who heard his case. How many racists do you actually think were in the two separate hearings in 2006?? Why didn’t McNeil’s lawyer dismiss all those racist ***** from his trial?

Different self-defense laws in GA, than in Florida. A LOT different, in GA, there was no “Stand Your Ground” when this altercation happened, and self-defense /only/ applied if there was /no other choice. Self-defense also did not say anything about /protecting/ your property, or kid, or /anyone/ other than yourself under the law. Now, I’d like to think that McNeil could maybe have said he was “preventing a felony,” re Epp hurting his boy, except that Epp wasn’t even on his property when he got there, Epp wasn’t anywhere around his son, so that didn’t fly with the jury…

2. Under OCGA § 16-3-21(a), McNeil was justified in shooting Epp “only if he reasonably believe[d] that such force [wa]s necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”  ~ Supreme Court 2008 appeal


McNeil gets into the driveway, tells the 911 dispatcher he’s going to “whip his ass” refuses to stay in the car and wait for the police when asked to do so, he pulls a gun out of his glove box and loads it, shows it to Epp, at which point Epp started coming toward him “fast”, then McNeil gets out of his car. Shoots the ground, Epps still coming, so he shoots Epp in the face.

McNeil was convicted on the jury’s opinion that /he/ was the aggressor. As the aggressor in the jury’s eyes he was not legally entitled to claim self-defense because in GA self-defense /only/ applied if you had no other choice. The jury felt that his immediately driving home “in a rage”, his statement he was going to whip his ass, loading the gun in his car, and then getting out of his car to confront Epp, [even though the police whom he was on the phone with when he got in the driveway told him not to do so,] precluded him from self-defense.


In addition, and perhaps even more so, because McNeil lied to the jury about Epp having the knife out and threating /him/ with it when he shot him. The knife, according to both the witness and the police, was in Epp’s pocket and he had never had it out when he advanced on McNeil before getting shot. Basically, the jury decided they didn’t believe his story, the DA presented a better case, that McNeil was reacting in anger over an argument him and Epp had had just hours before his son had called him, flew home in a rage, intent on “whipping” Epps ass, and he did so.

Jury’s really hate getting lied to… Best way to **** yourself in a case? Lie or get caught in a lie, stupidest thing you can ever do…



Fast forward to an article from 2012 for this excerpt: some of the jurors were willing to speak to the reporter after NAACP got involved in 2012, AFTER McNeil’s 2011 plea hit the courts.

“Jurors recently told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution they discussed self-defense during their deliberations and they still thought it was murder based on John McNeil’s 911 call, eye witness testimony and the apparent hatred the two men had for each other.

They are certain they made the correct decision.

“He (McNeil) called the law and said he was going there to do it… We got full instructions on everything. We listened. The judge told us exactly what to look at.” said one juror, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation.

Another juror in the nine-day trial, Michael McClellan, said “The jury was very diligent. I don’t think there was an injustice done in terms of the jury’s verdict.”

And here is a (somewhat) dissenting view from another juror:

“Juror Janis Parsons agreed with the verdict but now believes McNeil should get another chance because in her opinion the life sentence without the possibility of parole for 30 years is too long.

“I’m not saying he wasn’t trying to protect his kid but just listening to it on the 911 recording… our hands were tied,” Parsons said. “I didn’t want to say he was guilty…. But I couldn’t say he was innocent.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/was-it-self-defense-or-murder/nSpxR/


McNeil was granted an out-of-time appeal on February 29, 2008, and he filed his appeal in the Court of Appeals: McNeil’s appeal was rejected http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20GACO%2020081103094/McNEIL%20v.%20STATE

“The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find McNeil guilty of all of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also, e.g., Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624(1), 331 S.E.2d 516 (1985) (despite claim of self-defense, evidence supported felony murder conviction based on aggravated assault where defendant retrieved pistol in anticipation of confrontation and told victim to leave before shooting him). Indeed, from the evidence presented, the jury was authorized to conclude that McNeil decided to confront Epp with the specific purpose of "whip[ping] his ass" before Epp even knew that McNeil was on his way to the scene; that McNeil had time to stop in his driveway, retrieve a gun from his glove compartment, take the gun out of its case, load it, exit from his car, and "argue loudly" with Epp for a few minutes before firing the first shot at him; and that McNeil lied to police when he claimed that he had shot Epp because Epp had "pulled a knife on him" during the confrontation (because other eyewitness testimony showed that Epp had no weapon in his hands at the time of the shooting, and further testimony showed that Epp's knife was folded and in his pocket after he had been shot). Because "[w]itness credibility is a matter to be determined by the jury, as is the question of justification; . . . the jury was free to accept the evidence that the shooting[][was] not done in self-defense . . . and to reject any evidence offered by [McNeil] in support of a justification defense." (Citation omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304, 306(2), 612 S.E.2d 789 (2005). As sufficient evidence existed to support the conclusion that McNeil committed the offense of aggravated assault, and felony murder predicated on that aggravated assault, there is no basis for overturning the jury's verdict here.”

~ And here is where his lawyer fucked him~

McNeil contends that the trial court erred by failing to include on the verdict form a requirement that the jury determine whether justification was found as to each count. However, the record reveals that McNeil's counsel specifically informed the trial court that he had "no objection to the [verdict] form as is," without any changes having to be made to it. McNeil has therefore waived review of this issue on appeal.

Similarly, McNeil has waived the specific issue that he attempts to raise on appeal with respect to the pattern jury charges on aggravated assault and felony murder. Although McNeil's counsel purported to reserve a general objection to the jury charges below, he also specifically informed the trial court that he was "solid on" and had no objection to "any pattern charges." Indeed, even where there is no "general waiver of the right to urge error in any of the trial court's charges . . . a defendant will not be allowed to take inconsistent positions, originally urging in the trial court that a charge is not error, but subsequently urging on appeal that the charge is error." Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 354(2), 466 S.E.2d 837 (1996). Because McNeil acquiesced to the use of the pattern charges below, he cannot now complain on appeal that the use of the pattern charges was erroneous.

McNeil argues that the trial court erred in failing to recharge the jury as to justification and self-defense upon his request. The record reveals, however, that the jury requested a recharge on malice murder and voluntary manslaughter only, which the trial court gave. "When a jury requests a recharge on a particular point, the trial court has the discretion to recharge in full or only as to the points requested. [Cit.]" Johnson v. State, 281 Ga. 770, 773(3), 642 S.E.2d 827 (2007). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining defense counsel's request that the court also recharge the jury on justification and self-defense. Id.

McNeil's contention that an aggravated assault charge cannot be used as the underlying felony to support a conviction for felony murder is without merit, as this Court has already decided that the use of an aggravated assault charge in this manner is proper. Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754(1), 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976).

All the Justices concur, except SEARS, C.J., who dissents.

SEARS, Chief Justice, dissenting.

Because my examination of the record shows that the State failed to disprove John McNeil's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I respectfully dissent to the Court's affirmance of McNeil's conviction for murder.

~ She wrote a scalding dissent that the jury didn’t see it as self-defense, absolutely did /not/ agree with the jury’s ruling, nor those of the other judges.

However, are you going to argue that /all/ the other justices, and all the jurors were racist?

Really?

That all happened in 2008. Even with a judge seriously dissenting and bringing up so many good points - McNeil didn’t do anything about it. I don’t know why his lawyer fucked him over when he had a pretty clear case for a retrial, you’d have to ask his lawyer.


In any event, it wasn’t until four years later in 2012, after McNeil filed his 2011 corpus habeas, that the NAACP even noticed his case, proclaimed it a racial injustice, and started actually helping him… If they even actually did…

“In their last phone conversation, he [McNeil] told her how much he loved her, and they discussed his plan to plead guilty to manslaughter so he could get home to her before she died.

"I told her how much she meant to me and that I needed her because I feed off her strength and energy," McNeil said in an interview last week.

McNeil, 46, had claimed self-defense in a fatal shooting at his home in Georgia in 2005 but was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty last week to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to time served and 13 years of probation.”

…

“While in prison, McNeil missed the funeral of his mother, who died in July 2012. He didn't want to be absent for his wife's funeral as well.

And she supported the decision to plead guilty – do what you have to get home, his wife said, because we need you here. After she died, McNeil stuck by the plea because his wife had asked him to do so, regardless of what happened to her.

"I needed to get here for our two sons," he said. "That was one of the requests she made – get home to our sons, they need you."

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/john-mcneil-pleads-guilty-released-bury-wife_n_2711744.html

More lies from the NAACP in the above:

“McNeil's case prompted calls from the NAACP and other groups for "stand your ground" laws to apply to all citizens, regardless of race. McNeil is black, and the man he shot was white.”

And More: “The case, which centers around a black man killing a white man, became a rallying cry for civil rights leaders who questioned whether the implementation of self-defense laws is inherently biased.

“Is the world to believe that you cannot protect your children and your property… if you are a black man in Georgia?” Ben Jealous, CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said.

They insisted McNeil should have been protected by what’s known as the castle doctrine – a legal protection for people who use deadly force on their own property if threatened with deadly force.

Prosecutor Pat Head said race had nothing to do with his decision to try McNeil for murder.

“This isn’t a Stand Your Ground case,” he said. “This is a case where McNeil said he was going there to whip his ass, so got a gun out and then shot him. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. Killed him.”

~ http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/stand-your-ground-john-mcneil

Stand your ground didn’t exist in 2005. McNeils lawyer fucked him.

More:

“August 23, 2011

(Baltimore, MD) – On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, the North Carolina and Georgia State Conferences of the NAACP, in conjunction with the national NAACP, will hold a press conference and rally to address the Georgia State Supreme Court’s wrongful conviction of John McNeil, an African American business owner and former resident of Cobb County, Georgia. In 2006, McNeil was sentenced to life in prison in the death of Brian Epp. Mr. McNeil was defending his family at his home from Mr. Epp, a trespasser on McNeil’s property.

The case has taken on a racial dynamic as Mr. Epp was Caucasian.

In calling for a reexamination of the case, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said, “ Unfortunately, this court and prosecutor - who overruled local police to pursue this case – is more influenced by Georgia’s legacy of racism than current law. This appears to be opportunism on the part of the prosecutor. I find it curious that no white man is serving time under similar circumstances in the state.”

…

McNeil shot Epp on the front lawn of McNeil’s suburban Atlanta home following a verbal altercation. During the trial, McNeil testified that Epp charged him with what McNeil believed was a box cutter, and that he shot Epp in self defense after multiple warnings. Police confirm a weapon was found in Epp’s pocket at the scene. The prosecution did not refute McNeil’s claims that Epp was the aggressor in the encounter.

Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in her powerful dissent [~in 2008 as I showed above~], concluded that “no rational trier of fact could have found the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Echoing Jealous’ statement, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, said, “Chief Justice Sears’ dissent should convince every person of goodwill that we are sentenced to a life of struggle to dismantle the racism deeply rooted in our criminal justice system. The Georgia Court’s unjust verdict against John McNeil must be reconsidered. If it can happen to a successful businessman in Cobb County like him, it could happen to any of us.”

“After reviewing the evidence in John McNeil’s case, I am convinced Mr. McNeil’s only crime is that he is black,” said Ed Dubose. “We will fight for justice for John McNeil and his family until they are reunited.”

~ http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-rallies-for-justice-in-case-of-john-mcneil

More:

“Bob Zellner, who is well known for his civil rights work for the last 50 years, has just moved to Wilson to help with the McNeil case.

“I think this case is the mirror image of the Trayvon Martin case,” Zellner said. “The deciding factor is race, which is still very important in the South and very important in the criminal justice system.”

Zellner alleges Trayvon Martin’s killer was an predator.

“He followed him, tracked him. He was the aggressor, yet he claimed self-defense,” Zellner said. “He was not even arrested. It took a national clamor to even get him some kind of trial.”

Zellner said in McNeil’s case, it’s the other way around.

“Once he got into the criminal system, the presumption was that the black man shot the white man, was guilty and should be sentenced to life in prison.”

Zellner said there is a lot of work to be done in the McNeil case.

Barber told the group that under the castle law in Georgia, McNeil was under no duty to retreat.

He said the law doesn’t say someone has to be committing a felony on you; if you are on your own property and you think or feel that a felony is about to be committed, you have a right to defend yourself.

Barber said officers found Epp had the knife in his hand when they got to the scene of the shooting.

“The District Attorney’s office lifted Epp up as a pristine person,” Barber said. “They didn’t even deal with how other folks were afraid of him. There are a lot of other facts that are a part of this.”

Barber said McNeil was not some gangbanger running in the streets, but a good man.

“If this could happen to a John McNeil, a businessman without a criminal record, a husband, a father, who restrained himself, then this could happen to anybody,” Barber said.

~ Unequal justice NAACP wages civil rights battle from the heart of Wilson GA NAACP

More:

“The George State Conference NAACP is relieved that John McNeil is free,” stated NAACP Georgia State Conference President Edward Dubose. “It is clearly long overdue, considering that John McNeil’s only crime is defending his son and home while being black. While we celebrate John’s freedom we are equally saddened that Anita McNeil’s death occurred before John could walk free. Now that John is free we are committed to completely clearing his name. We must put an end to this unequal justice system that forces African Americans to take guilty pleas even when they are innocent.”

~ John McNeil Released from Prison NAACP


But again, Stand your Ground didn’t exist in 2005 when the shooting happened.
McNeil was /not/ charged with murder because he was black.
Epp did /not/ have the knife in his hand. \
The DA was fine with letting the case be self-defense, Epp’s widow, kids, and friends were not.

It’s all lies to paint a picture… Can you see it at all or are you too sold on the idea that all white people hate black people? I mean we’re talking about /at least/ 30 people here who are supposedly ‘racist’ enough to commit someone to life in prison simply because he’s black. – McNeil’s lawyer, the 3 (I believe) DA’s, the grand jury that indicted him, the separate jury who convicted him, all of the court of appeal justices (maybe save the one who said self-defense?)

Really?


Anyway, FINALLY in 2011, McNeil submits, and is granted, a retrial in 2012. Why did he wait so long? I have no idea, ask him, ask his lawyer, that is /on him/ not anyone else… The NAACP comes out of the woodwork, now they see the case, now they’re behind him…

The judge pretty much immediately grants him the retrial, the 2008 dissenting judge had said the same thing. This judge doesn’t give a retrial because of stand your ground, not because of racism, not because of the DA bringing forward the case – NONE of the shit that NAACP claims it was… But because;

“The prejudice McNeil suffered from the jury not being instructed that he could be acquitted, based on his justified defense of his son, is manifest,” George said in her ruling. “So much of the defense’s evidence, and even counsel’s closing argument, focused on McNeil’s actions in defending his son that it would be difficult to envision a better example of prejudice when the jury returned to its deliberations without knowing that it was authorized to acquit McNeil based on his defense of a third party.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/cobb-prisoner-gets-appeal-in-2005-trespasser-killi/nSPZB/


His lawyer failed him, many times, I’d even buy that his lawyer was a racist. But the entire court, the entire system, all the jurors? I don’t buy that.

He wasn’t convicted because he was black, he was convicted because he raced home intending to have a fight and shot someone he hated/was in a prolonged fight with.

However, that’s not even what /McNeil/ claimed in his retrial. He pled guilty for exactly what actually happened - it was heat of the moment protecting his kid, and anger, then combined with Epp continuing to charge him. That is the truth, it’s exactly what happened.

I’m glad he and the DA were able to work out a plea bargain, and I’m glad they gave him time served. Why did he plea bargain if his self-defense case was iron clad like NAACP put forth? Because it didn’t apply, and it wouldn’t apply. I mean it’s kind of shitty, and I’d like to think that a retrial jury wouldn’t chuck him back in jail, but no, I don’t think they could find it was self-defense – but that’s just my legal opinion, and really its irrelevant, because McNeil decided to plea bargain.


I think it’s a fair judgement on that 7 years for killing someone “because you were pissed” is maybe even a bit light, but I can buy that McNeil was at least a bit concerned for his kid. I can also easily buy that Epp was stoned stupid, I mean who the **** runs at someone with a loaded gun, right?

Oh wait…

Brown charges at Wilson so Wilson shoots him.
“Wilson’s a racist.” “He murdered Brown” “Systematic Racism”

Nooo, there’s no double standard here at all.

Really?

 

[JQPublic1]

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Whites,

No, I am not what? Which part of my narrative are you addressing with that quip?

No, there has NEVER been a consensus among the general White populace in America to embrace civil rights for Blacks. That is especially true among White males. Any progress in that regard has been advanced by a relatively few Whites with enough political clout to make a difference; often in the wake of deadly riots.
One of the most important catalysts was Martin Luther King's strategy designed to pimp the media whores into televising the plight of Black America across the world. It worked.

Kennedy and LBJ didn't just become concerned over Civil Rights in a vacuum. It was becoming increasingly clear that a national crisis was developing that could affect the standing of the US in the world at large.

The general white male populace was not concerned about that. All they saw was the "encroaching" masses of Blacks competing with them for jobs and competing with their sons for education.

The Democrats, being in ower at the time and seeing the big picture on a world stage, had little choice but to pass Civil Right's legislation. After all they diid not want Blacks looking at or thinking about Communism!
And they couldn't kill em all, not while the world was watching!

Who do you think elected and kept electing those "few whites" who made those policies?

The nation that elected JFK was 88% white.

Stop hiding behind that :nation " bull crap. People like you would never have voted for JFK if you had an inkling that he would respond to MLK the way he did! If you voted for him it wasn't because you loved blacks!

People like me did vote for JFK, and all the other Presidents since who have ALL been very clear in their support for equal Civil Rights for blacks.


You are denying that simple truth, because you want to judge White America by the actions of white guys 350 years ago.

who the hell do you think you are talking to? I might have been born yesterday but I stayed up all night.

Do you bother to read my responses to you. If not end this dialogue right now. I already told you that the reference to 350 years was just a starting point. I am sure even YOU know that the black guy named Martin Luther wasn't alive 350 years ago. Heh heh heh!

Tel me something chum? Why was Civil Rights legislation necessary in the first place if you and the white voters of yesteryear were so congenial towards blacks? Your sudden "altruism" sounds like an oxymoron in comparison with the "conservatism" we see today as well as inthe past.

And where is the ending point?

Certainly not today. Certainly not 20 years ago. YOu've dismissed the last 50 years.


"Sudden altruism"? Nothing sudden about it. The debate and conflict over the issue is all their in the history books.

There is no ending point. White flight, racial discrimination, gerrymandering, all of those things are still with us. Those of us who point that out are ostracized and unpopular! Yet, you want me to ignore the evidence I see with my own eyes.

And no, the "history " books that
are used to teach our children are severely lacking! embellished BS that glorifies murderers, rapists and thieves. We don't dare expose their young minds to the true horror that made our country great, do we?

 

[sealybobo]

I have keyboard face from falling asleep at my desk.... For the record I'm blaming JQ for making me rehash, find, cite, and explain all this crap.

Back to the Zimmerman and McNeil cases:


Read the ruling and you will understand WHY the case I presented and Zimmerman are different. You are being intentionally dumb to not admit the differences and intentionally ignoring truth in order to, ultimately, promote racism, and frankly I find it disgusting. I'm tired of games, I'm tired of bullshit, and I'm tired of lies.


~ George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin s death - CNN.com

I've read the ruling and I've heard all the arguments you just posited in favor of Zimmerman. Nothing new here folks. But beware: Evercurious is tired of anything that doesn't fit his/her worldview. Look, Ec, your disdain for lies isn't any more valued than mine or that of anyone else.


I hope you understand that what you call lies, doesn't necessarily make it so. I haven't lied in my encapsulation of events concerning the Martin/Zimmerman affair but I do have an opinion that is different from yours concerning who was actually standing their ground.


Unlike you, I examined the events through the eyes of both GZ AND Martin as best I could with the evidence available to me. You simply imagined what poor GZ was thinking when he saw that "thug."Right?


I imagined that I was Trayvon walking in the rain with candy and a drink when some shady looking character started shadowing me.( I have already laid out the order of events that followed up to the chase.)


Fearful, I looked back and saw the fat stranger (GZ) chasing after me.

I decided to hide in the shadows and wait for the strange white dude to pass by so I can confront him and ask him what is his problem. (stop)


Martin is armed only with his fists but he decides to stand his ground. He feels threatened and is therefore covered under the SOG laws of Florida and can now use deadly force to resist his attacker...the man chasing him. Under the cover of darkness and under the circumstances, Martin had every right to defend himself by any means necessary including deadly force. Too bad he didn't have a gun or a bowie knife.


Martin probably had no idea burglaries had taken place in the community and he was not concerned initially with anything more than getting home safely. GZ changed all of that by putting TM in fear and ultimately losing to an armed psychopath when he decided to stand his ground.

I was never straight up on GZ's "side," nor ever automatically the “white guys” side in any ******* media shit storm case we’ve had, so don't be flinging that bullshit at me – Here is /all/ I have /ever/ said on Zimmerman on USMB http://www.usmessageboard.com/search/3913168/?q=zimmerman&o=relevance&c[user][0]=50158


I could also damn near pull off an Obama style, "that could be my son" statement, so don't presume I'm "just another racist" in how I reviewed either of these cases either. My 20 year old son has to deal with these ******* racist assholes down in Vegas.


That ******* bullshit right there is exactly what I'm talking about, I am an ally in a true situation of racism, but you immediately choose to write me off as "racist" because /I/ don't agree with you on this one or that one. It is complete ******* bullshit that you just pulled out of your ass based on absolutely nothing, and frankly you're quite welcome to shove it right back in there if that’s how you’d like to play.



You brought these cases as a comparison between the two, I merely pointed out why the cases were /not/ the same, I didn’t give any real opinion on them. However, you seem to want to get into it, so here you go (I’m going to be polite and fold up the 20 whatever ******* pages for those who don’t want to scroll through it all every time they load this page of the thread):

In your viewpoint, it is okay to "hide in the bushes" and confront someone when you are supposedly in "fear for your life" and that, in your mind, is still "acting in self-defense"?


So look, we're ultimately talking about two random people on the street here. If two people are walking down the road, does the one in "front" typically presume that the person behind them is "following" them, and even if they /do/ feel that they are being followed, do they have the "right" to turn around and kick their ass for it?


I do not know of /any/ legal standing that could, in any way, shape, or form "entitle," or give you any right, to hide in the bushes then jump out and kick someone's ass for following you down a street, but that is what you are arguing here, that Martin had /that/ right. I disagree, like, a lot…


Maybe it is a cultural difference, but that is just /not/ a normal reaction for most people who are "afraid" of someone, it is a "violent" action, even if the intent [initially] was just to "confront" them verbally, it is /still/ an intentional act of "confrontation" and thus not a /legal/ act of "self-defense." I guess you want to say instinct right? Fight or flight, and Martin decided to “fight” instead of “flight”?


Okay, thing is, self-defense, implies, that you /had/ to use force to protect yourself. Even your own idea of what you think happened it is not self-defense. I'm going to give you a quick rundown of Florida's Stand Your Ground law from a lawyer there, because you are a bit off in your explaining and understanding of it.


Not that I expect Martin /knew/ the law nor had any clue about it – as I recall Martin had pretty just moved there because his mom "threw him out" for getting suspended from school, either for fighting or for marijuana possession depending on which version of his texts you want to go by. Either way, it’s unrealistic for anyone to think that Martin both knew, and acted, within the legal self-defense laws of Florida. But regardless:


Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013. (regarding home and car invasions)


Under Section 776.013(3), the “no duty of retreat” rule will not apply to a person who is engaged in an unlawful activity or is in a place where he or she has no right to be. Other provisions preclude a defendant from raising a self-defense claim altogether. Under Section 776.041, the justifications for the use of force do not apply if the accused is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.


The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.


Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:

(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.


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

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

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened 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 or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

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

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or

(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).

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

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

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195.


776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27; s. 5, ch. 2014-195.


776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—

(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195.


776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.


776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.


776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—

(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67; s. 8, ch. 2014-195.


776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.—

(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.

(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272; s. 9, ch. 2014-195.


776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—

(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.


776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.


776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.

(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:

(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:

1. Canteen purchases;

2. Telephone access;

3. Outdoor exercise;

4. Use of the library; and

5. Visitation.

(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.

(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.

History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.


776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.—

(1) Whenever the state attorney or statewide prosecutor dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document, or decides not to file an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be documented in writing and retained in the files of the state attorney or statewide prosecutor.

(2) Whenever a court dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be recorded in an order or memorandum, which shall be retained in the court’s records.

(3) Under either condition described in subsection (1) or subsection (2), the person accused may apply for a certificate of eligibility to expunge the associated criminal history record, pursuant to s. 943.0585(5), notwithstanding the eligibility requirements prescribed in s. 943.0585(1)(b) or (2).


~ http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

So, like I said, even under your own idea of what you think went down, being followed doesn't qualify for self-defense or stand your ground because there was absolutely no indication what-so-ever that Martin was in /any/ danger of being harmed even though Zim was following him.



For the sake of argument though, let’s go ahead and say Zim threw the first punch. Zim throws a punch, that does absolutely /no/ damage what-so-ever to Martin, there wasn’t a mark on the boy but the gun shot right? However, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume that somehow Martin was at that point so scared that Zim was going to beat his ass or kill him (maybe he saw the gun or w/e), that in that moment, he believed that his life was in immediate danger.


*Just for the record, Martin is considered, by law, as the initial aggressor because he “popped out of the bushes” on Zim, even if he was, as you’ve proposed, just intending to confront Zim about following him, and even if Zim threw the first punch - the fact that Martin confronted Zim at all, instead of just going home, puts him in the /legal/ standing of “initial aggressor” in the case.


That said, however, we’re going to play this out in the best light, presume that Martin didn’t pop out of the bushes on Zim. Hell, let’s even say that Zim caught up to Martin somehow and punched him in the back of the head “knock out game” style. ~ Because my whole point here is to show that the ruling has /nothing/ to do with race, and /everything/ to do with the law, alight? So Zim punches Martin in the back of the head and Martin is in fear for his life and “defends himself” - Now obviously Martin got the upper hand.



So, we have Martin sitting on Zim’s chest pounding his face "MMA style” according to the witnesses. We’re going to argue that Martin was in fear for his life when he “retaliated” against Zim, and was thus at that point authorized to claim self-defense:


776.012 (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force,against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.



At this point there is simply no way that Martin is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm what-so-ever thus “deadly force” is most certainly /not/ reasonable. He can only use force in self-defense to the extent necessary to /defend/ himself - sitting on someone’s chest beating the shit out of them while they scream for help is absolutely /not ever/ defending oneself - it’s beating the shit out of someone… At absolute best, Martin could argue a heat of the moment tunnel vision kind of deal, but that’d be pretty tricky to win given the witness testimony and the fact that Martin didn’t appear to have any injuries. Either way though, it’s absolutely moronic to think that a jury just is going to pull that shit out of their ass in order to convict Zim of murder.



Zim on the other hand /is/ able to claim self-defense, even if he /had/ started the fight, because he’s made it pretty damn clear that he wants out of physical contact with Martin thus satisfying:


776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.



Now, Martin did /not/ stop even when Zim was yelling for help (reportedly MANY times according to witnesses.) Martin did not stop when said witness yelled at Martin and Zim that they were calling the cops. Zim cannot (b) “in good faith withdrew from physical contact” (because Martin is sitting on his chest.) Zim is (b) “making clear indication that he wished to withdrawal” and Martin has indeed “continued the use of force.” Zim has satisfied the requirements to claim self-defense, /even/ if he punched Martin first. He is very /clearly/ in a situation where he could use force to defend himself.


When it comes to the determination of /deadly force/, again Martin did /not/ stop when Zim was yelling for help, he did not stop when the witness yelled they were calling the cops. I, and the jury, believe that Zim had every reason to feel that his life was in danger in that situation. Now given that you apparently believe, "self-defense" is admissible if you confront someone merely for "following" you, then how the hell can you possibly /not/ see being pinned on your back and getting your face beat in “MMA style” as "self-defense," right?


So the bottom line is that even if you argue Martin was, at some point, scared of Zim and acting in “self-defense,” even if you argue that Zim threw the first punch at Martin, even if you argue that Martin saw the gun and was in fear of his life, everything reasonable I can possibly think of in Martin’s favor with what’s presented in the case – it all still comes down to Zim was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin.


That is why Zim wasn’t charged, not because of racism, but because Zim was acting in self-defense and there is absolutely no way they could charge him with murder - it was self-defense by /every/ possible stretch of the law.

The decision


The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.


For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."


To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.


Ultimately, they believed Zimmerman wasn't guilty of either charge. None of the jurors wanted to speak to the media after the verdict.

Yeah, yeah , yeah, and had Martin killed GZ all of the above would have been just as applicable.

Not according to the law based on the facts we have from the eyewitness.


However, had Martin killed Zim (and thus Zim’s story that corroborated well with the eyewitness testimony,) then sure he could have tried to argue for self-defense, maybe the tunnel vision/heat of the moment argument I suggested above. But I mean, so what?


And more to my entire point of posting the matter in the first place, exactly how does /that/ fact show that Zim was let off due to “racism”?



Now, and this feeds to another point of mine, /had/ that happened, if Martin had killed Zim, then no one outside of whatever ******* city Florida would have any clue who GZ and TM were. And I’ll rest my case on that point…

Do you see the key difference from the McNeil case?


McNeil said on the recorded 911 call that he intended to "whip his ass" - now read the above reasons Zimmer went free again.


The jury in the McNeil case actually /DID/ agree with McNeil's actions to a point; he was in fear for his kids life, he was protecting his property, and he did fire a warning shot into the ground. That's why McNeil only got 6 years (instead of the typical 30 years or more.)

McNeil never said he was going to shoot or kill Epps. That is a key you seem to want to overlook. You are also ignorant of the fact that McNeil was initially absolved of wrongdoing and was free for nearly a year before being indicted, tried and sentenced to prison for LIFE not 6.

Don't let facts get in your way. He only did 6 due to the efforts of Black people who knew he was wrongully prosecuted and sentenced. Thank you NAACP

In 2006, McNeil was convicted for shooting Brian Epp on his property after Mr. Epp threatened his son with a box cutter and charged at John, with the weapon in his pocket. Two white investigating officers concluded that McNeil did not commit a crime, but 294 days after the incident McNeil was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison.

You are lying. So much for facts right? No court absolved McNeil of wrong doing, or ruled he had acted in self-defense, the police determined on the spot that it was self-defense and didn’t arrest him, sure.


Then Epp’s wife and friends convinced the DA to look at the case and present it to a grand jury - kind of like the officers believed <pick any racial outrage story> but the DA felt it was murder and indicted regardless. Or is that not allowed? If the police say it goes it goes then? Oh hell no, we know /that’s/ not the case. The DA sent the case to the grand jury and they charged him.



Jumping ahead to an article from 2012: “Cobb County’s District Attorney Pat Head said his review of the case led him to believe Epp was not a threat to McNeil and that the grand jury should review the facts.

Head said a grand jury, not him, decided McNeil should tried for murder.

…

Race, he said, did not factor into his decision making, an allegation leveled by the NAACP that has been advocating for John McNeil. “Anybody who knows me knows that’s an absolute lie,” Head said.

But to the NAACP, it smacked of selective prosecution. ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/was-it-self-defense-or-murder/nSpxR/

Here is another:

“For years, no one except their families and a few close friends seemed to notice — or perhaps care — about the circumstances of the 2005 death of Brian Epp and the murder conviction of the man who killed him, John McNeil.

Almost seven years later, however, the Epp-McNeil story is being played out by news organizations worldwide and on the Internet. It’s an example of how such attention can help create a movement, like the one centered on Georgia’s execution of Troy Davis a year ago and the stand-your-ground debate after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida earlier this year.

Like those cases, race is an element fueling at least some of the interest. Epp was white. McNeil is black.

The shooting in an upscale Kennesaw subdivision received scant media coverage once police decided McNeil was justified in shooting Epp. They concluded McNeil felt he was defending himself and his teenage son from the 43-year-old builder, and had not committed a crime.

“There was nothing that newsworthy about it,” said District Attorney Pat Head.

Media outlets didn’t notice when McNeil was indicted 294 days later, convicted of murder a few months later and sentenced to life in prison.

“The police never make the final decision about who to prosecute or what charges to prosecute,” Head said. “That final decision always rests with the prosecutor. The facts of this case is that it was a murder case and we presented it to a grand jury. And we presented it to 12 jurors and they all believed it was murder. And believed beyond a reasonable doubt.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/campaign-grows-to-free-georgia-man-in-stand-your-g/nSccS/


While I think the NAACP did the /right/ thing helping this guy out with self-defense here, they did it the wrong ******* way, and for the wrong ******* reason - when race bating became a “thing.” In a case that had /nothing/ to do with race despite the NAACP’s claims – and worse, they did it too late…


Let’s get into some NAACP lies though. “Self defense” like zimmer/martin? NOPE!

2013: “During the hearing, McNeil pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. McNeil was sentenced to seven years in prison and 13 years' probation on the manslaughter charge, but he was credited with seven years' time served and was released immediately.

The plea meant McNeil would soon be getting out of prison. He was serving life for the murder of Brian Epp more than seven years ago, a crime he and his supporters claimed was self-defense, a "stand your ground" case.” ~ http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/cobb-man-convicted-shooting-intruder-wins-freedom/nWMz5/

O.C.G.A. 16-5-2 (2010)
16-5-2. Voluntary manslaughter

(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources. ~ http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-2/

Not stand your ground, not self-defense, A CRIME OF PASSION. Now that’s brilliant, whoever advised McNeil on that did great. Except that he had to accept a guilty plea.

NAACP lied to their people unfortunately; that it was racism, that it was an injustice of “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine,” that it was simply because McNeil was black. Let’s get even deeper, because the whole reason the NAACP says they got involved in is because it was racism right?

Back to 2006 and the original case, McNeil is claiming self-defense:

It doesn’t matter if he said he was going to kill Epp or just whip his ass, McNeil is still the aggressor. He did not /have/ to confront Epp, he could have called his son and made sure he was okay, he could have waited the few minutes for the police to show up like 911 told him on the phone, but he didn’t, he chose to confront Epp with a gun, and that makes him the aggressor in the eyes of the law.

Now understand, the supposed racial shit here? McNeil was found to be aggressor, and Epp not a threat until McNeil confronted him, by not only the grand jury who indicted him, but the jury who heard his case. How many racists do you actually think were in the two separate hearings in 2006?? Why didn’t McNeil’s lawyer dismiss all those racist ***** from his trial?

Different self-defense laws in GA, than in Florida. A LOT different, in GA, there was no “Stand Your Ground” when this altercation happened, and self-defense /only/ applied if there was /no other choice. Self-defense also did not say anything about /protecting/ your property, or kid, or /anyone/ other than yourself under the law. Now, I’d like to think that McNeil could maybe have said he was “preventing a felony,” re Epp hurting his boy, except that Epp wasn’t even on his property when he got there, Epp wasn’t anywhere around his son, so that didn’t fly with the jury…

2. Under OCGA § 16-3-21(a), McNeil was justified in shooting Epp “only if he reasonably believe[d] that such force [wa]s necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”  ~ Supreme Court 2008 appeal


McNeil gets into the driveway, tells the 911 dispatcher he’s going to “whip his ass” refuses to stay in the car and wait for the police when asked to do so, he pulls a gun out of his glove box and loads it, shows it to Epp, at which point Epp started coming toward him “fast”, then McNeil gets out of his car. Shoots the ground, Epps still coming, so he shoots Epp in the face.

McNeil was convicted on the jury’s opinion that /he/ was the aggressor. As the aggressor in the jury’s eyes he was not legally entitled to claim self-defense because in GA self-defense /only/ applied if you had no other choice. The jury felt that his immediately driving home “in a rage”, his statement he was going to whip his ass, loading the gun in his car, and then getting out of his car to confront Epp, [even though the police whom he was on the phone with when he got in the driveway told him not to do so,] precluded him from self-defense.


In addition, and perhaps even more so, because McNeil lied to the jury about Epp having the knife out and threating /him/ with it when he shot him. The knife, according to both the witness and the police, was in Epp’s pocket and he had never had it out when he advanced on McNeil before getting shot. Basically, the jury decided they didn’t believe his story, the DA presented a better case, that McNeil was reacting in anger over an argument him and Epp had had just hours before his son had called him, flew home in a rage, intent on “whipping” Epps ass, and he did so.


Jury’s really hate getting lied to… Best way to **** yourself in a case? Lie or get caught in a lie, stupidest thing you can ever do…



Fast forward to an article from 2012 for this excerpt: some of the jurors were willing to speak to the reporter after NAACP got involved in 2012, AFTER McNeil’s 2011 plea hit the courts.


“Jurors recently told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution they discussed self-defense during their deliberations and they still thought it was murder based on John McNeil’s 911 call, eye witness testimony and the apparent hatred the two men had for each other.


They are certain they made the correct decision.

“He (McNeil) called the law and said he was going there to do it… We got full instructions on everything. We listened. The judge told us exactly what to look at.” said one juror, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation.

Another juror in the nine-day trial, Michael McClellan, said “The jury was very diligent. I don’t think there was an injustice done in terms of the jury’s verdict.”

And here is a (somewhat) dissenting view from another juror:


“Juror Janis Parsons agreed with the verdict but now believes McNeil should get another chance because in her opinion the life sentence without the possibility of parole for 30 years is too long.

“I’m not saying he wasn’t trying to protect his kid but just listening to it on the 911 recording… our hands were tied,” Parsons said. “I didn’t want to say he was guilty…. But I couldn’t say he was innocent.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/was-it-self-defense-or-murder/nSpxR/


McNeil was granted an out-of-time appeal on February 29, 2008, and he filed his appeal in the Court of Appeals: McNeil’s appeal was rejected http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20GACO%2020081103094/McNEIL%20v.%20STATE


“The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find McNeil guilty of all of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also, e.g., Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624(1), 331 S.E.2d 516 (1985) (despite claim of self-defense, evidence supported felony murder conviction based on aggravated assault where defendant retrieved pistol in anticipation of confrontation and told victim to leave before shooting him). Indeed, from the evidence presented, the jury was authorized to conclude that McNeil decided to confront Epp with the specific purpose of "whip[ping] his ass" before Epp even knew that McNeil was on his way to the scene; that McNeil had time to stop in his driveway, retrieve a gun from his glove compartment, take the gun out of its case, load it, exit from his car, and "argue loudly" with Epp for a few minutes before firing the first shot at him; and that McNeil lied to police when he claimed that he had shot Epp because Epp had "pulled a knife on him" during the confrontation (because other eyewitness testimony showed that Epp had no weapon in his hands at the time of the shooting, and further testimony showed that Epp's knife was folded and in his pocket after he had been shot). Because "[w]itness credibility is a matter to be determined by the jury, as is the question of justification; . . . the jury was free to accept the evidence that the shooting[][was] not done in self-defense . . . and to reject any evidence offered by [McNeil] in support of a justification defense." (Citation omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304, 306(2), 612 S.E.2d 789 (2005). As sufficient evidence existed to support the conclusion that McNeil committed the offense of aggravated assault, and felony murder predicated on that aggravated assault, there is no basis for overturning the jury's verdict here.”


~ And here is where his lawyer fucked him~


McNeil contends that the trial court erred by failing to include on the verdict form a requirement that the jury determine whether justification was found as to each count. However, the record reveals that McNeil's counsel specifically informed the trial court that he had "no objection to the [verdict] form as is," without any changes having to be made to it. McNeil has therefore waived review of this issue on appeal.


Similarly, McNeil has waived the specific issue that he attempts to raise on appeal with respect to the pattern jury charges on aggravated assault and felony murder. Although McNeil's counsel purported to reserve a general objection to the jury charges below, he also specifically informed the trial court that he was "solid on" and had no objection to "any pattern charges." Indeed, even where there is no "general waiver of the right to urge error in any of the trial court's charges . . . a defendant will not be allowed to take inconsistent positions, originally urging in the trial court that a charge is not error, but subsequently urging on appeal that the charge is error." Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 354(2), 466 S.E.2d 837 (1996). Because McNeil acquiesced to the use of the pattern charges below, he cannot now complain on appeal that the use of the pattern charges was erroneous.


McNeil argues that the trial court erred in failing to recharge the jury as to justification and self-defense upon his request. The record reveals, however, that the jury requested a recharge on malice murder and voluntary manslaughter only, which the trial court gave. "When a jury requests a recharge on a particular point, the trial court has the discretion to recharge in full or only as to the points requested. [Cit.]" Johnson v. State, 281 Ga. 770, 773(3), 642 S.E.2d 827 (2007). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining defense counsel's request that the court also recharge the jury on justification and self-defense. Id.


McNeil's contention that an aggravated assault charge cannot be used as the underlying felony to support a conviction for felony murder is without merit, as this Court has already decided that the use of an aggravated assault charge in this manner is proper. Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754(1), 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976).


All the Justices concur, except SEARS, C.J., who dissents.

SEARS, Chief Justice, dissenting.

Because my examination of the record shows that the State failed to disprove John McNeil's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I respectfully dissent to the Court's affirmance of McNeil's conviction for murder.

~ She wrote a scalding dissent that the jury didn’t see it as self-defense, absolutely did /not/ agree with the jury’s ruling, nor those of the other judges.

However, are you going to argue that /all/ the other justices, and all the jurors were racist? Really?


That all happened in 2008. Even with a judge seriously dissenting and bringing up so many good points - McNeil didn’t do anything about it. I don’t know why his lawyer fucked him over when he had a pretty clear case for a retrial, you’d have to ask his lawyer.



In any event, it wasn’t until four years later in 2012, after McNeil filed his 2011 corpus habeas, that the NAACP even noticed his case, proclaimed it a racial injustice, and started actually helping him… If they even actually did…

“In their last phone conversation, he [McNeil] told her how much he loved her, and they discussed his plan to plead guilty to manslaughter so he could get home to her before she died.

"I told her how much she meant to me and that I needed her because I feed off her strength and energy," McNeil said in an interview last week.

McNeil, 46, had claimed self-defense in a fatal shooting at his home in Georgia in 2005 but was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty last week to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to time served and 13 years of probation.”

…

“While in prison, McNeil missed the funeral of his mother, who died in July 2012. He didn't want to be absent for his wife's funeral as well.

And she supported the decision to plead guilty – do what you have to get home, his wife said, because we need you here. After she died, McNeil stuck by the plea because his wife had asked him to do so, regardless of what happened to her.

"I needed to get here for our two sons," he said. "That was one of the requests she made – get home to our sons, they need you."

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/john-mcneil-pleads-guilty-released-bury-wife_n_2711744.html

More lies from the NAACP in the above:

“McNeil's case prompted calls from the NAACP and other groups for "stand your ground" laws to apply to all citizens, regardless of race. McNeil is black, and the man he shot was white.”

And More: “The case, which centers around a black man killing a white man, became a rallying cry for civil rights leaders who questioned whether the implementation of self-defense laws is inherently biased.

“Is the world to believe that you cannot protect your children and your property… if you are a black man in Georgia?” Ben Jealous, CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said.

They insisted McNeil should have been protected by what’s known as the castle doctrine – a legal protection for people who use deadly force on their own property if threatened with deadly force.

Prosecutor Pat Head said race had nothing to do with his decision to try McNeil for murder.

“This isn’t a Stand Your Ground case,” he said. “This is a case where McNeil said he was going there to whip his ass, so got a gun out and then shot him. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. Killed him.”

~ http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/stand-your-ground-john-mcneil

Stand your ground didn’t exist in 2005. McNeils lawyer fucked him.

More:

“August 23, 2011

(Baltimore, MD) – On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, the North Carolina and Georgia State Conferences of the NAACP, in conjunction with the national NAACP, will hold a press conference and rally to address the Georgia State Supreme Court’s wrongful conviction of John McNeil, an African American business owner and former resident of Cobb County, Georgia. In 2006, McNeil was sentenced to life in prison in the death of Brian Epp. Mr. McNeil was defending his family at his home from Mr. Epp, a trespasser on McNeil’s property.

The case has taken on a racial dynamic as Mr. Epp was Caucasian.

In calling for a reexamination of the case, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said, “ Unfortunately, this court and prosecutor - who overruled local police to pursue this case – is more influenced by Georgia’s legacy of racism than current law. This appears to be opportunism on the part of the prosecutor. I find it curious that no white man is serving time under similar circumstances in the state.”

…

McNeil shot Epp on the front lawn of McNeil’s suburban Atlanta home following a verbal altercation. During the trial, McNeil testified that Epp charged him with what McNeil believed was a box cutter, and that he shot Epp in self defense after multiple warnings. Police confirm a weapon was found in Epp’s pocket at the scene. The prosecution did not refute McNeil’s claims that Epp was the aggressor in the encounter.

Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in her powerful dissent [~in 2008 as I showed above~], concluded that “no rational trier of fact could have found the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Echoing Jealous’ statement, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, said, “Chief Justice Sears’ dissent should convince every person of goodwill that we are sentenced to a life of struggle to dismantle the racism deeply rooted in our criminal justice system. The Georgia Court’s unjust verdict against John McNeil must be reconsidered. If it can happen to a successful businessman in Cobb County like him, it could happen to any of us.”

“After reviewing the evidence in John McNeil’s case, I am convinced Mr. McNeil’s only crime is that he is black,” said Ed Dubose. “We will fight for justice for John McNeil and his family until they are reunited.”

~ http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-rallies-for-justice-in-case-of-john-mcneil

More:

“Bob Zellner, who is well known for his civil rights work for the last 50 years, has just moved to Wilson to help with the McNeil case.

“I think this case is the mirror image of the Trayvon Martin case,” Zellner said. “The deciding factor is race, which is still very important in the South and very important in the criminal justice system.”

Zellner alleges Trayvon Martin’s killer was an predator.

“He followed him, tracked him. He was the aggressor, yet he claimed self-defense,” Zellner said. “He was not even arrested. It took a national clamor to even get him some kind of trial.”

Zellner said in McNeil’s case, it’s the other way around.

“Once he got into the criminal system, the presumption was that the black man shot the white man, was guilty and should be sentenced to life in prison.”

Zellner said there is a lot of work to be done in the McNeil case.

Barber told the group that under the castle law in Georgia, McNeil was under no duty to retreat.

He said the law doesn’t say someone has to be committing a felony on you; if you are on your own property and you think or feel that a felony is about to be committed, you have a right to defend yourself.

Barber said officers found Epp had the knife in his hand when they got to the scene of the shooting.

“The District Attorney’s office lifted Epp up as a pristine person,” Barber said. “They didn’t even deal with how other folks were afraid of him. There are a lot of other facts that are a part of this.”

Barber said McNeil was not some gangbanger running in the streets, but a good man.

“If this could happen to a John McNeil, a businessman without a criminal record, a husband, a father, who restrained himself, then this could happen to anybody,” Barber said.

~ Unequal justice NAACP wages civil rights battle from the heart of Wilson GA NAACP

More:

“The George State Conference NAACP is relieved that John McNeil is free,” stated NAACP Georgia State Conference President Edward Dubose. “It is clearly long overdue, considering that John McNeil’s only crime is defending his son and home while being black. While we celebrate John’s freedom we are equally saddened that Anita McNeil’s death occurred before John could walk free. Now that John is free we are committed to completely clearing his name. We must put an end to this unequal justice system that forces African Americans to take guilty pleas even when they are innocent.”

~ John McNeil Released from Prison NAACP

Stand your Ground didn’t exist in 2005 when the shooting happened.

McNeil was /not/ charged with murder because he was black.

Epp did /not/ have the knife in his hand.

The DA was fine with letting the case be self-defense, Epp’s widow, kids, and friends were not.


It’s all lies to paint a picture… Can you see it at all or are you too sold on the idea that all white people hate black people? I mean we’re talking about /at least/ 30 people here who are supposedly ‘racist’ enough to commit someone to life in prison simply because he’s black. – McNeil’s lawyer, the 3 (I believe) DA’s, the grand jury that indicted him, the separate jury who convicted him, all of the court of appeal justices (maybe save the one who said self-defense?)

Really?

Anyway, FINALLY in 2011, McNeil submits, and is granted, a retrial in 2012. Why did he wait so long? I have no idea, ask him, ask his lawyer, that is /on him/ not anyone else… Oh now the NAACP comes out of the woodwork, now they see the case, now they’re behind him…

The judge pretty much immediately grants him the retrial, the 2008 dissenting judge had said the same thing. This judge doesn’t give a retrial because of stand your ground, not because of racism, not because of the DA bringing forward the case – NONE of the shit that NAACP claims it was… But because;

“The prejudice McNeil suffered from the jury not being instructed that he could be acquitted, based on his justified defense of his son, is manifest,” George said in her ruling. “So much of the defense’s evidence, and even counsel’s closing argument, focused on McNeil’s actions in defending his son that it would be difficult to envision a better example of prejudice when the jury returned to its deliberations without knowing that it was authorized to acquit McNeil based on his defense of a third party.” ~ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/cobb-prisoner-gets-appeal-in-2005-trespasser-killi/nSPZB/

His lawyer failed him, many times, I’d even buy that his lawyer was a racist. But the entire court, the entire system, all the jurors? I don’t buy that.

He wasn’t convicted because he was black, he was convicted because he raced home intending to have a fight and shot someone he hated/was in a prolonged fight with and shot them.

However, that’s not even what /McNeil/ claimed in his retrial. He pled guilty for exactly what actually happened - it was heat of the moment protecting his kid, and anger, then combined with Epp continuing to charge him. That is the truth, it’s exactly what happened.

I’m glad he and the DA were able to work out a plea bargain, and I’m glad they gave him time served. Why did he plea bargain if his self-defense case was iron clad like NAACP put forth? Because it didn’t apply, and it wouldn’t apply. I mean it’s kind of shitty, and I’d like to think that a retrial jury wouldn’t chuck him back in jail, but no, I don’t think they could find it was self-defense – but that’s just my legal opinion, and really its irrelevant, because McNeil decided to plea bargain.

I think it’s a fair judgement on that 7 years for killing someone “because you were pissed” is maybe even a bit light, but I can buy that McNeil was at least a bit concerned for his kid. I can also easily buy that Epp was stoned stupid, I mean who the **** runs at someone with a loaded gun, right?

Oh wait…

Brown charges at Wilson so Wilson shoots him.

“Wilson’s a racist.” “He murdered Brown” “Systematic Racism”


Nooo, there’s no double standard here at all.


Really?

Zimmerman jury bias Did racism or Stand Your Ground skew the verdict

Zimmerman Trial Racist Laws The New Republic

The Law that Acquitted Zimmerman Isn't Racist
But that doesn't mean the outcome wasn't

Zimmerman case rigged from start to finish some say

New Orleans Times-Picayune editorial writer Jarvis DeBerry cites an unnamed source who surveyed 20 local prosecutors (New Orleans area). All believe the case was deliberately botched.
Zimmerman case rigged from start to finish some say

The more I look back at this case, the more I remember how shady it all was. Zimmerman's

 

[Correll]

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

You continue to view the situation through the eyes of GZ and white people. You don't even consider the humanity of TM and the fear that was coursing through his young mind. No, to you he has been de humanized and relegated to "thug " status so anything he felt or did is immaterial. His perceptions of GZ didn't matter to the cops, the prosecution or the jurors.

Not once did Martin's Stand Your Ground right's surface during the trial.
'
When he ambushed the guy chasing him, he had every right to do so.
I don't blame TM for punching first and trying to kill the son of a ***** by saming his head into the curb, What was he to do , wait for the chaser to make the first move?
WHen he did stand his ground, however, the white mind turned TM into the aggressor and vilified him as a thug attacking a white man. Stand Your Ground was turned on it's head and GZ came away with the prize because he was armed. He should have been killed, not TM!

You continue to try to use Race to defend criminal behavior.

When Treyvon attacked Zimmerman he made himself the Aggressor.

This in not something that the "white mind" did, this is something that Martin did. It is part of the definition of "Aggressor"


Being followed is not justification for the use of deadly force.

We aren't talking about "following." I am talking about chasing..YOU are talking about following. There is a difference. Chasing is an attack
that implies an impending threat of bodily harm. TM therefore was covered under the SOG law and attempted to carry it out. He was out gunned. The aggression began when GZ gave chase not when Martin STOOD HIS GROUND!

You're streching to

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

You continue to view the situation through the eyes of GZ and white people. You don't even consider the humanity of TM and the fear that was coursing through his young mind. No, to you he has been de humanized and relegated to "thug " status so anything he felt or did is immaterial. His perceptions of GZ didn't matter to the cops, the prosecution or the jurors.

Not once did Martin's Stand Your Ground right's surface during the trial.
'
When he ambushed the guy chasing him, he had every right to do so.
I don't blame TM for punching first and trying to kill the son of a ***** by saming his head into the curb, What was he to do , wait for the chaser to make the first move?
WHen he did stand his ground, however, the white mind turned TM into the aggressor and vilified him as a thug attacking a white man. Stand Your Ground was turned on it's head and GZ came away with the prize because he was armed. He should have been killed, not TM!

You continue to try to use Race to defend criminal behavior.

When Treyvon attacked Zimmerman he made himself the Aggressor.

This in not something that the "white mind" did, this is something that Martin did. It is part of the definition of "Aggressor"


Being followed is not justification for the use of deadly force.

We aren't talking about "following." I am talking about chasing..YOU are talking about following. There is a difference. Chasing is an attack
that implies an impending threat of bodily harm. TM therefore was covered under the SOG law and attempted to carry it out. He was out gunned. The aggression began when GZ gave chase not when Martin STOOD HIS GROUND!

Earlier in this thread you complained that white people identify all blacks by the blacks who are the least successful.

But here YOU are identifying with Martin. You are the one who is determined to side with the black guy and make up reasons to justify it no matter how much you have to reach.

And you are not alone. The Black Community as a whole does this.

There are certainly those blacks who do not do this. Or at least when faced with choosing between telling the truth about what they saw or siding with the black guy.

Those heroes deserve respect.

The Aggression began when Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman was following Martin to report to the police his whereabouts, not to catch him.

 

[Correll]

1. No he wasn't.

2. In neither case was the dispatcher in a position to order the men to do anything.

GZ's behavior was certainly erratic and suspicious in and of itself. Any sane hue-man would have been alarmed by his actions. The dispatcher tried to diffuse the vigilante's, GZ's, spoken intent to interact with TM.
He had already slowly passed by his victim , then stopped and got out of the truck and stood near the path of the oncoming Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin decided to avoid the dangerous acting thug, GZ, and trotted off his path into the darkness where GZ freaked out and gave chase; all the while disregarding the dispatcher's warnings to leave the man alone.


A credit to the courage of Trayon Martin was his decision to confront a stalker who was larger than him and could be armed with anything. Unfortunately, it did not end well for TM. too bad he was unarmed. He should have shot GZ in his fat face without hesitation or mental reservation when the fool found him.

Zimmerman was a NeighborHood Watch guy that was trying to keep an eye on a stranger in a gated community to vector in the police.

That is not erratic or suspicious.

Martin was witnessed sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Martin didn't know who the **** GZ was. All he saw was a strange big fat dude shadowing and then chasing him. You know he was a watchman but to a terrified kid trying to get home in the rain he might have been a mass murderer for all he knew. If you start chasing me on a dark rainly night for no apparent reason, to me that is an attack and I then evoke Stand Your Ground with deadly force! Too bad TM only had skittles and a can of soda to defend himself with!

Martin was taller and obviously more bad ass than Zimmerman.

I doubt he was "terrified", especially when he was sitting on Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman screamed for help, and the witness "john" was yelling that he was calling the cops, and Martin didn't stop beating.

I'm a tough guy and I get scared/nervous whenever I get in a fight. It's natural/normal. Its healthy. If you don't then you are clearly under estimating your opponent and you never know how tough someone is just based on appearance. Plus in my experience blacks aren't that tough in fist fights. They might be athletic but most of them don't know how to fight. No ground game. ESPECIALLY when it's a kid. Trevon didn't even have man strength yet. How old was he 17? That's a good couple years before you get that man strength.

I was an all state wrestler when I was 17. I remember the first time taking the car out by myself. I made a mistake and was blocking the left turn lane and this 20 something year old bumped my car and cursed me. I was scared. Why was I scared? I was 160 lbs of all muscle, knew how to wrestle and fight. Why was I afraid of that MAN? Because I was still a boy.

Zimmerman is a murderer. You are seeing this from white eyes my friend. If it was your kid you'd see things differently.

And I'll admit I think it should be ok to question someone who doesn't belong to your gated community. Just somehow I think the whole incident went down different than the way you think it went down. You're defending a murderer.

Did you pounce on that man and beat him while he screamed for help?