George Zimmerman in custody

[sharon]

Ok so there is evidence that Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious? Is that what you are saying?

The former NW captain had quite a lot of say about "low life renters" and he was very clearly racist.

I won't post it here, but the guy's name was ..... Taaffe.

Wasn't a very successful program, was it?

 

[ecofarm]

It was already explained.. Zimmerman parked twice.No I didn't create the maps.. Why don't you click on "properties" and find their origins.

The first map has Z's route on foot in yellow arrows, and they begin at the blue rectangle, farther from the scene than the second vehicle location. The difference between the maps is not really so explainable, unless Z drove away from the scene after first parking and then walked back down the street.

 

[Caine]

The residents said that in the evening after school around dinner time the area was full of kids... and the back kitchen windows overlook this area.

What is your point though? What does it matter that kids WOULD HAVE been there?

What are you getting at?

 

[ecofarm]

he was very clearly racist.

So now he was definately drunk and is definately racist. Fantastic.

 

[ecofarm]

What are you getting at?

I asked him that question about the dog crap baggy dispensers at each end of the sidewalk. I don't think he explained how that matters either.

 

[sharon]

What is your point though? What does it matter that kids WOULD HAVE been there?

What are you getting at?

Just that it wasn't what you would traditionally think of as an alley .. rather a broad, grassy common back yard... and the shortest distance .. the most direct route to Trayvon's house.

This is shaping up to be definitely racist.. and I, for one, am sorry about that.

 

[sharon]

I asked him that question about the dog crap baggy dispensers at each end of the sidewalk. I don't think he explained how that matters either.

It means that except for this rainy night it was a busy area.........

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So you are inventing some. Like Z pulled his gun before the fight, and M was being chased...

I never said Zimmerman pulled his gun before the fight. I don't know why you keep saying that.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The first map has Z's route on foot in yellow arrows, and they begin at the blue rectangle, farther from the scene than the second vehicle location. The difference between the maps is not really so explainable, unless Z drove away from the scene after first parking and then walked back down the street.

It could be explained by one or more of the maps being wrong.

 

[ecofarm]

I never said Zimmerman pulled his gun before the fight. I don't know why you keep saying that.

I tried to explain to you that attacking someone is under the same law as SYG. One cannot attack someone except to stop a forcible felony. You said "no, I can attack someone if they pull out a gun". And I explained that pulling a gun on someone IS a forcible felony. If you shoot someone just because they happen to be holding a gun or take one out for unknown reasons, and it is obvious they had no intention of harming anyone, then you're a murderer and will be convicted. If someone pulls a gun out and you have REASON to believe they're gonna shoot you (or someone else), then they have committed a forcible felony and force (lethal and otherwise) is legal.

I don't understand where you are confused about SYG and when lethal (and other) force is legal.

Following someone (due to suspicion, as the case appears) is NOT a forcible felony and, therefore, force (lethal or otherwise) is not legal under SYG.

 

[sharon]

I tried to explain to you that attacking someone is under the same law as SYG. One cannot attack someone except to stop a forcible felony. You said "no, I can attack someone if they pull out a gun". And I explained that pulling a gun on someone IS a forcible felony. If you shoot someone just because they happen to be holding a gun or take one out for unknown reasons, and it is obvious they had no intention of harming anyone, then you're a murderer and will be convicted. If someone pulls a gun out and you have REASON to believe they're gonna shoot you (or someone else), then they have committed a forcible felony and force (lethal and otherwise) is legal.

I don't understand where you are confused about SYG and when lethal (and other) force is legal.

If someone pulls a gun and points it at you, assume they mean to shoot.. Only fools pull guns and don't shoot.

 

[ecofarm]

If someone pulls a gun and points it at you, assume they mean to shoot.. Only fools pull guns and don't shoot.

That was not stipulated. But yes, if someone points a gun at you, you can shoot/attack them. You don't need SYG for that. That goes for anywhere in the country that you could legally possess whatever weapon used (if any). And hell, the illegal weapon charge wouldn't draw a murder charge anyway... right?

 

[sharon]

That was not stipulated. But yes, if someone points a gun at you, you can shoot/attack them. You don't need SYG for that. That goes for anywhere in the country that you could legally possess whatever weapon used (if any). And hell, the illegal weapon charge wouldn't draw a murder charge anyway... right?

I don't know.. I used to date a US Secret Service guy.. he taught me how to shoot.. and said if you pull a gun, aim for center mass and shoot or someone will take it away from you and kill you with it...

He said, let the law sort it out afterwards.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't know.. I used to date a US Secret Service guy.. he taught me how to shoot.. and said if you pull a gun, aim for center mass and shoot or someone will take it away from you and kill you with it...

He said, let the law sort it out afterwards.

I don't know what you're reading in my post, but I agree that a drawn weapon should be fired center mass.

 

[sharon]

I don't know what you're reading in my post, but I agree that a drawn weapon should be fired center mass.

I am not crazy about guns.. I have done some skeet shooting and a bit of target shooting with my brothers, but they don't particularly impress me.. nor the attitude that sometimes goes along with handguns.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I am not crazy about guns.. I have done some skeet shooting and a bit of target shooting with my brothers, but they don't particularly impress me.. nor the attitude that sometimes goes along with handguns.

I'm pretty pro-gun, but I don't like our cultural worship of firearms. It weirds me out.

 

[ric27]

I'm pretty pro-gun, but I don't like our cultural worship of firearms. It weirds me out.

No, you are not pro gun

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I tried to explain to you that attacking someone is under the same law as SYG. One cannot attack someone except to stop a forcible felony.

That's not the same thing you said earlier.

First of all, to qualify for the SYG defense outside of one's "castle," they must first be attacked and they cannot be engaged in committing a crime.

Secondly, we were not talking about SYG, just self defense, which is not necessarily the same.

Thirdly, what you said was that it's not possible to provoke an attack except by committing a forcible felony. That is not the same thing you are saying now. And that was wrong as it is possible to provoke someone, according to Florida law, to attack first and ask questions later.

You said "no, I can attack someone if they pull out a gun". And I explained that pulling a gun on someone IS a forcible felony.

And that's not necessarily a felony either. It depends on what you do with the gun when you pull it out.

I don't understand where you are confused about SYG and when lethal (and other) force is legal.

I'm not. You are the one who kept saying I said Zimmerman pulled out his gun before the fight -- which is something I never said.

 

[Kreton]

That's not the same thing you said earlier.

First of all, to qualify for the SYG defense outside of one's "castle," they must first be attacked and they cannot be engaged in committing a crime.

Secondly, we were not talking about SYG, just self defense, which is not necessarily the same.

Thirdly, what you said was that it's not possible to provoke an attack except by committing a forcible felony. That is not the same thing you are saying now. And that was wrong as it is possible to provoke someone, according to Florida law, to attack first and ask questions later.

Zimmerman quite possibly was attacked which renders your above argument invalid.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Zimmerman quite possibly was attacked which renders your above argument invalid.

Again, not necessarily.

One is allowed to attack first in self defense if they reasonably fear they face an imminent attack. At least in Florida, it is possible to provoke an attack.

 

[ecofarm]

Someone following you for a block and asking a question, in the early evening, in a very public place, does not give reasonable fear of attack. Not by any measure.

 

[Kreton]

Again, not necessarily.

One is allowed to attack first in self defense if they reasonably fear they face an imminent attack. At least in Florida, it is possible to provoke an attack.

There is nothing to say he reasonably feared an attack. Especially if he approached Zimmerman

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Someone following you for a block and asking a question, in the early evening, in a very public place, does not give reasonable fear of attack. Not by any measure.

Except it wasn't like that. First of all, despite being early evening, it was already dark out. So Trayvon, who had done nothing wrong, was being followed by a stranger in a car at night for no apparent reason. When he discovered he was being followed, he ran to get away from Zimmerman, at which point, Zimmerman got out of his car, in the cold and rain, to chase Trayvon by foot.

If that isn't suspicious behavior enough, when the two encountered each other and exchanged words, Zimmerman reached for something. All that together, IMO, is reasonable fear of imminent danger to warrant a pre-emptive strike on Martin's part.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

There is nothing to say he reasonably feared an attack. Especially if he approached Zimmerman

I disagree. Someone chases you, first by car, then by foot, in the dark and in the rain, for no apparent reason, and then reaches for something -- you'd be foolish not to assume you were being attacked.

 

[MaggieD]

Certainly not.. Many people have wondered if George was drinking based on his 911 call.

Of course that would be put to rest immediately if the police had tested him.

Perhaps they did. Or did you give them your email address so they could notify you?