Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to[W:222]

[joko104]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

: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

Other than a weight difference, I will tell you that everything you posted is inaccurate. Factually inaccurate.

BTW... "advisor" is just put there by forum software at a certain post count level.

Welcome to the forum! Stick around.

 

[joko104]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

ONE OTHER THING... the notion that if one guy isn't armed the other guy isn't in danger of death or permanent injury. IF there is a fight and one is losing badly, unlike in the instance of GZ having a backup firearm isn't much help. The notion that two men fighting and none armed with a deadly weapon means no one gets seriously hurt or killed is just wrong. And an unarmed person becomes and armed person as soon as he grabs a rock, board, lamp or any of the other endless list of potential weapons we are all surrounded by.
MOST men in modern society are not skilled at fighting and are notably NOT skilled. Most who think they are even actually aren't, another thing GZ experienced. Fights among men aren't like in the movies. If both are unskilled? They end up just wrestling around on the ground. If either are truly skilled - or just lucky - it is a life-death struggle if either wants to truly end the life of the other. Yet "armed man" shoots unarmed man - and armed man not yet injured - can be super tough defenses to legally make. Again, there aren't always good decisions as an option, only picking from bad ones thrust upon you.

 

[Moot]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

No, hence why Zimmerman did not use that as his defense in the trial.

Zimmerman didn't exactly run away or avoid the confrontation did he? So perhaps, if Zimmerman's defense team did use the SYG as a defense then it might have made him look guilty and using the SYG law to excuse him. NTL, the judge told the jury that the SYG was the law and they decided the not guilty verdict based on that law.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

Zimmerman didn't exactly run away or avoid the confrontation did he? So perhaps, if Zimmerman's defense team did use the SYG as a defense then it might have made him look guilty and using the SYG law to excuse him. NTL, the judge told the jury that the SYG was the law and they decided the not guilty verdict based on that law.

No the verdict was not based on SYG.

 

[BretJ]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

Zimmerman didn't exactly run away or avoid the confrontation did he? So perhaps, if Zimmerman's defense team did use the SYG as a defense then it might have made him look guilty and using the SYG law to excuse him. NTL, the judge told the jury that the SYG was the law and they decided the not guilty verdict based on that law.

The verdict was based upon the fact that TM escalated to physical confrontation and placed GZ in a situation where he could not run away or retreat. TM placed GZ in a situation that was an actual threat to GZ's life and gave him no other choice. Nothing GZ did was illegal. It was an illegal act by TM that ended up getting him killed.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

: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.

You're going to get called on this.

He was not "told" to not pursue. He was informed it wasn't necessary for him to. There was no instruction or command to "not" do it, and the suggestion was also in conflict with earlier requests for him to continue giving them infomration as well.

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?

By showing enough forensic evidence and expert testimony to provide reasonable doubt to the jury. It's actually quite simple.

 

[ChezC3]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior 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

Yeah, see this goes on already without the gun, it's called passive aggressive behavior, and people got it something fierce. CCL keeping everyone guessing who's packing and SYG laws protecting you if the need arises, that imaginary force field some punks think they've got around them will go bye bye real quick and maybe politeness and good manners will be back in vogue...

 

[Mizmo]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty in actuality. But, I am surprised and disappointed that the prosecution did not aggressively pursue the "provocation aspect" on Zimmerman's part. The fact is that if Zimmerman had not aggressively pursued TM, the teenager would be alive today. Especially when he was told by the 9-1-1 operator not to follow Martin. Both Zimmerman and Martin were at fault in this incident, with Martin paying with his life and Zimmerman going free. Both parties should be held accountable. While it appears that Zimmerman did act in self-defense, the incident would not have escalated to that point had Zimmerman followed police instructions.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

​

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty in actuality. But, I am surprised and disappointed that the prosecution did not aggressively pursue the "provocation aspect" on Zimmerman's part. The fact is that

if Zimmerman had not aggressively pursued TM

, the teenager would be alive today. Especially when he was told by the 9-1-1 operator not to follow Martin. Both Zimmerman and Martin were at fault in this incident, with Martin paying with his life and Zimmerman going free. Both parties should be held accountable. While it appears that Zimmerman did act in self-defense, the incident would not have escalated to that point had Zimmerman followed police instructions.

... sloppy use of the meaning of words there, Mizmo

 

[blackjack50]

Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to.

: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

That's all a lie.

 

[blackjack50]

Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to.

: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

What does weight matter? If you don't know how to use your weight...weight is irrelevant.

 

[Oftencold]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

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'd suggest that anyone who thinks that meek submission to bullies will curb their aggressive tendencies needs to review how that worked out in the late 1930's when the Western European Powers tolerated the annexation of the Sudetenland, and what followed. Or you could just ask the survivors.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

A few thoughts...

1. These are facts in the case: Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He has not committing any crime.
2. George Zimmerman called the police on him and identified him as "suspicious" and made the statement something to the effect of "these Blankety punks are always getting away with it"
3. George Zimmerman chose to get out of his vehicle and pursue Martin
4. A confrontation ensued, and trayvon martin was shot dead.
5. George Zimmerman had a small cut on his head and some blood on his face. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin's hands or any bruising on his hands as one would expect with giving someone a beating
6 George Zimmerman HAD physical MMA training.. AND KNEW that police were on the way to come and help him because he had already called them.

Self Defense does not allow you to pursue unarmed, individuals, with intent on confronting them, and then when THEY defend themselves from being pursued in the dark and you aren't getting the best of them... to then pull out your weapon and shoot them.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A

 

[Smeagol]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

View attachment 67150482​

Angela Corey is a hardcore conservative. Right now she's getting beat up by Jesse Jackson for a different case her office prosecuted and conservatives for Zimmerman. She has a reputation of having no tolerance for violent crime and since she's become State Attorney, despite a few controversial cases, violent crime has dropped significantly in her district.

BTW: I just heard this week the Michael Dunn trial, which she announced she will personally prosecute in court, will be carried live on at least one of the cable news networks.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

A few thoughts...

Couple of issues with your thought,s since you seem to be acting as if you want to be objective.

1. These are facts in the case: Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He has not committing any crime.
2. George Zimmerman called the police on him and identified him as "suspicious" and made the statement something to the effect of "these Blankety punks are always getting away with it"
3. George Zimmerman chose to get out of his vehicle and pursue Martin

Correct. The issue is that there is disputed evidence between your instance 3 and your instance 4 that we have no definitive answer on.

4. A confrontation ensued, and trayvon martin was shot dead.

Correct

5. George Zimmerman had a small cut on his head and some blood on his face. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin's hands or any bruising on his hands as one would expect with giving someone a beating

One, small is a sujbective term. Two, he had blood on his head, not jus ton his face. Three, while you point out evidence and thoughts that lend support to the notion that Trayvon may've not harmed him, you basically ignore evidence to the contrary. You would "expect" blood or brusing on hands of someone giving a beating, but you'd also "expect" someone would not have cuts on the back of their head and bruises if they weren't attacked. You also ignore forensic testimony that supported the assertion of those injuries being made in the way Zimmerman's statement suggested, as well as acknolwedging the potential threat of them even without significantly more visable outward injuries.

It's at this point that it's clear your "thoughts" are being aimed at condemning the side you FEEL is guilty, as you're beginning to show clear favoritism towards one set of evidence while completely ignoring another.

6 George Zimmerman HAD physical MMA training.. AND KNEW that police were on the way to come and help him because he had already called them.

And here you continue that trend by pointing out that Zimmerman had MMA training...but failing to point out that his own instructor referred to him as "soft" nad rated his skills at a "1 out of 10" even after the year of training.

Self Defense does not allow you to pursue unarmed, individuals

Actually, in a general sense, self defense has nothing to do what so ever with pursuing individuals, armed or unarmed.

with intent on confronting them,

Depends on "confront" how? Confront talk? Confront fight? You have insight within a reasonable doubt into what Zimmerman's "intent" was?

and then when THEY defend themselves from being pursued in the dark and you aren't getting the best of them... to then pull out your weapon and shoot them.

In any situation, even one where the individual is engaging in Self Defense, if you escalate the fight to a level of threat beyond what you had directed at you when you're in a position to retreat then you open yourself up to becoming "The aggressor".

If some guy punches you at a bar and you pull a knife out and try to stab him, even though he attacked you first you're still now legally opening yourself up to potentially becoming the "aggressor" because you've raised the incident to letahl force. If you've subdued a person trying to mug you and proceed to break their arm or leg, you can become culpable because you're going beyond defending yourself into becoming an aggressor.

Just like the "innocent till proven guilty" aspect of our law can sometimes seemingly let a person get away, so too can self defense. But in the same fashion as "innocent till proven guilty", I'd MUCH rather have a few unfortunate instances of it allowing someone to get off than to remove it and have the majority of others suffer the consequences of that. The legal ability to defend ones self from a lethal threat is not something that should be done away with simply because people are freaking out due to an isolated case that got huge national coverage due to the gross amount of politicizing that was done with it.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A[/QUOTE]

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

Angela Corey is a hardcore conservative.

...

I don't care if she's yo mama ... what she did with this case was despicable and unethical.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

Couple of issues with your thought,s since you seem to be acting as if you want to be objective.



Correct. The issue is that there is disputed evidence between your instance 3 and your instance 4 that we have no definitive answer on.



Correct



One, small is a sujbective term. Two, he had blood on his head, not jus ton his face. Three, while you point out evidence and thoughts that lend support to the notion that Trayvon may've not harmed him, you basically ignore evidence to the contrary. You would "expect" blood or brusing on hands of someone giving a beating, but you'd also "expect" someone would not have cuts on the back of their head and bruises if they weren't attacked. You also ignore forensic testimony that supported the assertion of those injuries being made in the way Zimmerman's statement suggested, as well as acknolwedging the potential threat of them even without significantly more visable outward injuries.

It's at this point that it's clear your "thoughts" are being aimed at condemning the side you FEEL is guilty, as you're beginning to show clear favoritism towards one set of evidence while completely ignoring another.



And here you continue that trend by pointing out that Zimmerman had MMA training...but failing to point out that his own instructor referred to him as "soft" nad rated his skills at a "1 out of 10" even after the year of training.



Actually, in a general sense, self defense has nothing to do what so ever with pursuing individuals, armed or unarmed.



Depends on "confront" how? Confront talk? Confront fight? You have insight within a reasonable doubt into what Zimmerman's "intent" was?



In any situation, even one where the individual is engaging in Self Defense, if you escalate the fight to a level of threat beyond what you had directed at you when you're in a position to retreat then you open yourself up to becoming "The aggressor".

If some guy punches you at a bar and you pull a knife out and try to stab him, even though he attacked you first you're still now legally opening yourself up to potentially becoming the "aggressor" because you've raised the incident to letahl force. If you've subdued a person trying to mug you and proceed to break their arm or leg, you can become culpable because you're going beyond defending yourself into becoming an aggressor.

Just like the "innocent till proven guilty" aspect of our law can sometimes seemingly let a person get away, so too can self defense. But in the same fashion as "innocent till proven guilty", I'd MUCH rather have a few unfortunate instances of it allowing someone to get off than to remove it and have the majority of others suffer the consequences of that. The legal ability to defend ones self from a lethal threat is not something that should be done away with simply because people are freaking out due to an isolated case that got huge national coverage due to the gross amount of politicizing that was done with it.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A

[/QUOTE]

Zy ... You have the patience of a saint.

 

[Mizmo]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

... sloppy use of the meaning of words there, Mizmo

How would you phrase "Zimmerman following Martin"?

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

How would you phrase "Zimmerman following Martin"?

Probably like that. If I'm guessing, Bubba's issue was p robably with the notion of "aggressively pursuing". That's making an assumptive leap and assigning intent and style to what he was doing

 

[blackjack50]

Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to.

A few thoughts...

1. These are facts in the case: Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He has not committing any crime.
2. George Zimmerman called the police on him and identified him as "suspicious" and made the statement something to the effect of "these Blankety punks are always getting away with it"
3. George Zimmerman chose to get out of his vehicle and pursue Martin
4. A confrontation ensued, and trayvon martin was shot dead.
5. George Zimmerman had a small cut on his head and some blood on his face. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin's hands or any bruising on his hands as one would expect with giving someone a beating
6 George Zimmerman HAD physical MMA training.. AND KNEW that police were on the way to come and help him because he had already called them.

Self Defense does not allow you to pursue unarmed, individuals, with intent on confronting them, and then when THEY defend themselves from being pursued in the dark and you aren't getting the best of them... to then pull out your weapon and shoot them.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A

You skipped a lot between 3 and 6. ALOT that was covered in the trial.

 

[chuck71]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...

Couple of issues with your thought,s since you seem to be acting as if you want to be objective.



Correct. The issue is that there is disputed evidence between your instance 3 and your instance 4 that we have no definitive answer on.



Correct



One, small is a sujbective term. Two, he had blood on his head, not jus ton his face. Three, while you point out evidence and thoughts that lend support to the notion that Trayvon may've not harmed him, you basically ignore evidence to the contrary. You would "expect" blood or brusing on hands of someone giving a beating, but you'd also "expect" someone would not have cuts on the back of their head and bruises if they weren't attacked. You also ignore forensic testimony that supported the assertion of those injuries being made in the way Zimmerman's statement suggested, as well as acknolwedging the potential threat of them even without significantly more visable outward injuries.

It's at this point that it's clear your "thoughts" are being aimed at condemning the side you FEEL is guilty, as you're beginning to show clear favoritism towards one set of evidence while completely ignoring another.



And here you continue that trend by pointing out that Zimmerman had MMA training...but failing to point out that his own instructor referred to him as "soft" nad rated his skills at a "1 out of 10" even after the year of training.



Actually, in a general sense, self defense has nothing to do what so ever with pursuing individuals, armed or unarmed.



Depends on "confront" how? Confront talk? Confront fight? You have insight within a reasonable doubt into what Zimmerman's "intent" was?



In any situation, even one where the individual is engaging in Self Defense, if you escalate the fight to a level of threat beyond what you had directed at you when you're in a position to retreat then you open yourself up to becoming "The aggressor".

If some guy punches you at a bar and you pull a knife out and try to stab him, even though he attacked you first you're still now legally opening yourself up to potentially becoming the "aggressor" because you've raised the incident to letahl force. If you've subdued a person trying to mug you and proceed to break their arm or leg, you can become culpable because you're going beyond defending yourself into becoming an aggressor.

Just like the "innocent till proven guilty" aspect of our law can sometimes seemingly let a person get away, so too can self defense. But in the same fashion as "innocent till proven guilty", I'd MUCH rather have a few unfortunate instances of it allowing someone to get off than to remove it and have the majority of others suffer the consequences of that. The legal ability to defend ones self from a lethal threat is not something that should be done away with simply because people are freaking out due to an isolated case that got huge national coverage due to the gross amount of politicizing that was done with it.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A

[/QUOTE]

But the bottom line is always the same: The Police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, basically let the Police handle it. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and pursued his own agenda of following Trayvon. Whether he got savagely beaten by Trayvon (which I doubt, since he had 80 pounds on Martin. Was Trayvon another Manny Paquio?), or the other way around, Trayvon would be walking around today if Zimmerman had followed the Police dispatcher's instructions. tks, chuck
A[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[blackjack50]

Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to.

Couple of issues with your thought,s since you seem to be acting as if you want to be objective.



Correct. The issue is that there is disputed evidence between your instance 3 and your instance 4 that we have no definitive answer on.



Correct



One, small is a sujbective term. Two, he had blood on his head, not jus ton his face. Three, while you point out evidence and thoughts that lend support to the notion that Trayvon may've not harmed him, you basically ignore evidence to the contrary. You would "expect" blood or brusing on hands of someone giving a beating, but you'd also "expect" someone would not have cuts on the back of their head and bruises if they weren't attacked. You also ignore forensic testimony that supported the assertion of those injuries being made in the way Zimmerman's statement suggested, as well as acknolwedging the potential threat of them even without significantly more visable outward injuries.

It's at this point that it's clear your "thoughts" are being aimed at condemning the side you FEEL is guilty, as you're beginning to show clear favoritism towards one set of evidence while completely ignoring another.



And here you continue that trend by pointing out that Zimmerman had MMA training...but failing to point out that his own instructor referred to him as "soft" nad rated his skills at a "1 out of 10" even after the year of training.



Actually, in a general sense, self defense has nothing to do what so ever with pursuing individuals, armed or unarmed.



Depends on "confront" how? Confront talk? Confront fight? You have insight within a reasonable doubt into what Zimmerman's "intent" was?



In any situation, even one where the individual is engaging in Self Defense, if you escalate the fight to a level of threat beyond what you had directed at you when you're in a position to retreat then you open yourself up to becoming "The aggressor".

If some guy punches you at a bar and you pull a knife out and try to stab him, even though he attacked you first you're still now legally opening yourself up to potentially becoming the "aggressor" because you've raised the incident to letahl force. If you've subdued a person trying to mug you and proceed to break their arm or leg, you can become culpable because you're going beyond defending yourself into becoming an aggressor.

Just like the "innocent till proven guilty" aspect of our law can sometimes seemingly let a person get away, so too can self defense. But in the same fashion as "innocent till proven guilty", I'd MUCH rather have a few unfortunate instances of it allowing someone to get off than to remove it and have the majority of others suffer the consequences of that. The legal ability to defend ones self from a lethal threat is not something that should be done away with simply because people are freaking out due to an isolated case that got huge national coverage due to the gross amount of politicizing that was done with it.

Much is made about Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman. Well, I know that if I was being pursued by a strange person, in the dark, I might try to present myself as something other than a victim and ask the fellow why he was following me. And if a confrontation ensued.. and that person was reaching for a weapon.. I certainly would be doing whatever was necessary to defend myself from someone who had pursued me down a dark street.. and who is know trying to kill me.


A

[/QUOTE]

Not often do I come across posts so thoroughly constructed. If DP were a university...this would be the doctoral thesis that put it on the map. Beautiful post.

 

[blackjack50]

Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to.


But the bottom line is always the same: The Police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, basically let the Police handle it. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and pursued his own agenda of following Trayvon. Whether he got savagely beaten by Trayvon (which I doubt, since he had 80 pounds on Martin. Was Trayvon another Manny Paquio?), or the other way around, Trayvon would be walking around today if Zimmerman had followed the Police dispatcher's instructions. tks, chuck
A[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Bottom line? Zimmerman changed direction when the dispatcher (who does not have the authority to give an order) told him, "we don't need you to do that."

That isn't an order. He didnt tell him to turn around.

Weight is not a factor in fighting. I have a blue belt in jiu jitsu and regularly was defeated by a gentlemen who was 150 lbs. I outweighed him by 100 lbs at the time. I have done MMA and been beaten by guys who were 80 lbs lighter. Do you know why? My training was not enough to overcome theirs.

Weight is a factor in 2 trained opponents of relatively equal skill. But Trayvon was clearly in better athletic shape than Zimmerman. Zimmerman cleary did not have the training to handle a ground and pound grappling incident. Having an opponent in full mount is the ONE OF, IF NOT THE HARDEST positions to escape. The only position I find more difficult is side mount, but that is because I train against fatties (I'm heavyweight).

Seriously. Any knowledge of grappling and mma would tell you that getting your face beat in or grabbed makes it very hard to get out of full mount, especially if the opponent has your shoulders pinned. Of course what would you know of getting up off your back in an mma match?

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...


But the bottom line is always the same: The Police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, basically let the Police handle it.[/quote]

No, he did not.

While you may think it's a technicality, what *actually* was said is important when discussing issues of law.

The Dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to pursue, he told him that they did not need him to.

Telling someone NOT to do something, and telling them you don't need them to do something, are two different things with very different connotations and meanings towards them and that distinction is important when talking about a legal case.

Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and pursued his own agenda of following Trayvon.

This is true, but again...is not directly relevant to the notion of self defense being legitimate or not.

Whether he got savagely beaten by Trayvon (which I doubt, since he had 80 pounds on Martin. Was Trayvon another Manny Paquio?), or the other way around, Trayvon would be walking around today if Zimmerman had followed the Police dispatcher's instructions.

To your little aside. Weight is not the singular determining factor in a fight. Additionally, all weight is not equal. Being larger does present certain negatives compared to a lighter individual when it comes to fighting, and being larger due mostly to fat carries with it far fewer benefits than when that extra weight comes from muscle. Again, this is an indication of you ignoring facts that hurt your argument while simply seizing on ones that don't.

Second, let's assume for a minute that it's CLEAR that Zimmerman absolutely did ignore the dispatchers suggestions AND that he did not turn and retreat and then had Trayvon come back and find him (both of which DO have conflicting evidence to support)...then you're right. Trayvon would LIKELY (no guarantee) be walking around today had Zimmerman followed the police dispatchers instructions. However, Trayvon would be walking around today as well had he made a number of different choices on his end as well. The Death Of Trayvon Martin does not lie singularly and squarely on whether or not Zimmerman listens to the dispatchers suggestion, because that's suggesting that NO OTHER CHOICES what so ever factored into the end result...and that's simply not true.

One could say that "Had Trayvon not been suspended he wouldn't have even been in that city so he would be walking around today" and they'd be doing the same thing you're doing....attempting to twist and manipulate things while ignoring others so that you can cast blame on the side you disagree with, nothing more than that. The reality is BOTH MEN made a serious of choices in their life and during that incident that ultimately led to this result. A different choice along the way by EITHER of them could've changed it. If Trayvon doesn't go to 7-11 that night, or had Zimmerman headed out to the bar with some friends, this wouldn't have happened either.

Whether or not it would've happened had he listened to the dispatcher or not is not pertinent to whether or not self defense was legitimately a possibility in the killing, because there was nothing inherently nor provably illegal in his following of Trayvon AND because there's no clear evidence in any way showing who actually initiated the physical conflict or made any legitimately clear threats. And using ONE CASE to have a cow about Self Defense laws...without ANY actual high level, honest research into their widespread use over the entire country and the amount of instances where it was used in an arguably more "just" way, is idiotic and is just highlighting how so many people have simply raped this young man's body in the name of their political agendas from the very start.