I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for and extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for and extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used 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 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 of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used 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.
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
No, hence why Zimmerman did not use that as his defense in the trial.
No, a stand-your-ground hearing would have taken place before the judge alone. No jury. Zimmerman's defense team knew a judge would not grant that immunity because of the political ramifications that surrounded this case. Smart move. They'll go after it now, and a judge will be able to rule solely on the merits of the circumstances since he's been found not guilty. The only defense to killing another human being is self-defense, so I'm thinking it'll be a slam dunk.
None of those things are illegal and you have an obligation to walk away from those things. If you cant, grow up. Or make it a point to "stand and fight", but be prepared to die. Many people carry guns, knives or other weapons.- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
Not de jure, but de facto, yes. If you provoke them to the point where you are in fear of imminent great bodily harm or deathyou may use lethal force to defend yourself.I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
To answer your question in short. No.
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
776.041 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 of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such 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 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 of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
No, hence why Zimmerman did not use that as his defense in the trial.
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[2]
Murphy wrote:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
:mrgreen: That's exactly what George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin. After being told by a police dispatcher not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman did exactly that. He goaded, pursued, and berated Trayvon until it escalated to a fight, ending when Zimmerman shot him dead. And he was found Not Guilty. How does a man who outweighs a kid by eighty pounds get away with saying that Martin was savagely beating him, and he had no choice but to shoot him?
Nothing Zimmerman did actually involved Stand Your Ground laws.
The laws imply a choice between running or fighting but Zimmerman didn't have the opportunity to run away. He was pinned underneath a guy beating the snot out of him.
:mrgreen: Zimmerman outweighed Martin by eighty pounds. Was Martin another Manny Paquio? Zimmerman was told by a police dispatcher not to pursue Martin, but he did anyway. He had plenty of opportunity to run away. A voice expert analyzed the recording that lady witness made and determined the person yelling for help was not Zimmerman. Who then, was it? Duhhhh! Zimmerman pursued Martin, and Martin tried to get away. C'mon Dapper, a kid outweighed by eighty pounds has the guy pinned underneath and is beating the snot out of him? tks, chuck
You obviously know very little if any of the facts in the case.
I guess this is your way of telling us you didn't follow the case very closely.
:mrgreen: I followed the case VERY closely. If I wanted to tell you I didn't I would say it in just those words 'I didn't follow the case very closely', but the fact is, I did. Tell me Zimmerman didn't outweigh Martin by eighty pounds! Tell me a Police dispatcher DIDN'T tell Zimmerman not to follow him! Tell me Martin didn't try to get away from Zimmerman! Tell me Zimmerman was not the aggressive pursuer of Martin! I followed the case very, very, closely. You say you're an 'Advisor' What kind of valuable advice do you give? Do you advise dogs on the best way to pee on a fire hydrant? chuck
:mrgreen: I heard the actual recording between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher, so that's one BIG fact I know. It went something like this: Zimmerman "There's a suspicious looking black man out here. He's acting like he's on drugs". Dispatcher: "Are you following him?" Zimmerman: "Yes!" Dispatcher: "Ok, well, we don't need you to do that". Another fact I know is that Zimmerman outweighed Martin by eighty pounds. I heard the recording of Martin talking to his girlfriend. He told her some one was following him. She told him to run. He said "I'm not going to run, but I'm going to walk fast". So there's another FACT I know! Obviously, it was Zimmerman who was pursuing Martin!! Here's the biggest FACT, Kal',: If Zimmerman had complied with the Police dispatchers instructions to NOT pursue Martin, Martin would be walking around today, skittles, hoody, and all. So think that over, Mr. 'I have an answer for everything'. chuck
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?