• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

What evidence do you have that Z was approaching M in a threatening manner?

j-mac

simply following someone on foot & in a car, is reason enough to feel threatened by someone.

If Martin felt threatened simply due to Zimmerman following him in his car and on foot, that is something a jury would surely understand.
 
in Florida, you don't have to be using force to assualt me. Simply following me & approaching me in what I consider to be a theatening manner is assault, in Florida.

hey, its Florida. :)

Specifically, show us where it is says this....for educational purposes :)
 
Specifically, show us where it is says this....for educational purposes :)

Good question, I would love to know that. I suspect that if it were the case and since these laws have existed for a while in different states, there should be example of a successful (he was following me so I punched him) application of SYG.
 
could you point tho that exact comment by me?

but lets assume I said it.

Here you go:

the evidence suggests he was looking to get the guy he had previously lost...or someone who fit his description.

There you go.

Zimmerman's words on the call to the cops, suggests a man on a mission. He speculated that Martin was a robber, and he appeared determined to not let him get away.

First, some on this forum have speculated that is what Z thought, but Zimmerman himself never said that. All he said was that Martin was acting suspicious... And even if he had said that, it's NOT evidence that supports your claim. ... Second, it's clear he wanted to keep track of Martin so police could question him, but he did not indicate he would ever attempt to "get him" himself.

According to Zimmerman's own words, Martin was an "asshole" & a "****ing punk".

My God... Those were expressions, not personal insults... You of course will disagree, but the bottom line is those words do not indicate that he was going to "get the guy" and sure as hell isn't evidence of such as you are claiming.

Those are not the words of a guy on a leisurely evening stroll.

So what?

Zimmerman was clearly pursing Martin, and Martin was aware of this.

Zimmerman was following Martin, but the evidence clearly shows he was not doing so to for the purpose of apprehending him, but rather to inform police where he was when they arrived.


Now, do you have any actual evidence that Zimmerman wanted to "get" Martin, rather than just keep track of him for police as the 911 tapes indicate? Or was that baseless and irrelevant speculation all you had?
 
Last edited:
Only an idiot would continue discussing this issue with you.
Hence your reply, right?
:lamo



images


oh look, the nameless hoody-man is holding Skittles & ice-tea.
That's his problem, isn't it?



i also nevr said he was guilty of manslaughter, but I appreciate your concession.


so you are trying to tell us, that you believe that predicting that someone will be found guilty of Manslaughter in the future, is the same thing as saying that they are now...as of this day....guilty of Manslaughter??
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.
:naughty
I am on record in EVERY related thread in this forum, as stating that I believe he is probably guilty of manslaughter, should have been charged with manslaughter, and will most likely walk since its gonna be near impossible to prove he intended to kill Martin.



Zimmerman said that Martin started the fight. Well, Zimmerman is also on trial for Murder.

as far as being a witness to his own altercation, seems a bit like a conflict of interest, don't ya think?

unless he is willing to take the stand, I'll take his statement as to who started the fight, with a MASSIVE grain of Irish seasalt.
And you are failing to take into account that he had no idea of how many witnesses there were, or who saw what and was fully cooperative with the investigators immediately following the incident. Doing so, did not, and could not, allow him any chance to concoct some lie.



#1. he had no business trying to keep track of anyone, as he wasn't a cop.
He had every right, and all the business in doing so.



however, his pursuit of Martin gave Martin the legal right to feel threatened & provoked by Zimmerman's actions.

the simple fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, is enough to justify Martin pro-actively defending himself with violence, under the Stand Your Ground law.
Wrong.
 
Last edited:
under Florida's SYG law, if you follow me in your car and then on foot, and then come into my face, I have the LEGAL RIGHT to strike first.

hey, its Florida...what do you expect?
No you do not.




in Florida, you don't have to be using force to assualt me. Simply following me & approaching me in what I consider to be a theatening manner is assault, in Florida.

hey, its Florida. :)
Wrong.
No you can't.

And it was already pointed out to you earlier in this thread.



lol
:lamo
:thumbs:



Why are you relying on wiki and not on Florida law?
Especially after criticizing another for such?

Could it be that Wiki is the only source to support your argument?



Code:
[COLOR="#000000"][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][B][COLOR="#000000"]The 2011 Florida Statutes[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][SIZE=1]
	
[/SIZE][INDENT][B]Title XLVI
CRIMES[/B][SIZE=1]
	
[/SIZE][B]Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE[/B][SIZE=1]
	
[/SIZE][INDENT][B]784.011 Assault.—[/B][SIZE=1]
	
[/SIZE][INDENT][B](1)[/B] An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another,
[SIZE=1]	[/SIZE]coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear
[SIZE=1]	[/SIZE]in such other person that such violence is imminent.

[B](2)[/B] Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,
[SIZE=1]	[/SIZE]punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.[SIZE=1]—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2400; GS 3226; RGS 5059; CGL 7161; s. 1, ch. 70-88; s. 729, ch 71-136; s. 17, ch. 74-383;
[SIZE=1]	[/SIZE]s. 7, ch. 75-298; s. 171, ch. 91-224.
Note.—Former s. 784.02.[/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/COLOR]
[SIZE=1][url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html]Florida Statutes : Title XLVI : Chapter 784 : ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE[/url][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]	[/SIZE]




Most likely the if it makes it to a Jury, they will not believe he instigated anything, but instead was a concerned citizen reporting a suspicious person, who then came to a belief of fear of great bodily harm because he was being attacked.



ive already quoted Florida's SYG law weeks ago.

You quoted Wiki recently and I corrected you. See above post.
 
Last edited:
Don't rely on Wiki when you can get it straight from Florida's Statutes.

But you wont be able to point it out in the Statutes either because what you say isn't true.

Code:
[SIZE=1][COLOR="#000000"][B][SIZE=2]Title XLVI
CRIMES
	
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—[/SIZE][/B]
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in [B]s.[COLOR="#0033BB"] 776.012[/COLOR], s.[COLOR="#006633"] 776.013[/COLOR][/B], 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, [COLOR="#A9A9A9"]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.[/COLOR]
                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.

[COLOR="#A9A9A9"](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).[/COLOR]
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
[url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html]Statutes & Constitution : Title XLVI : CRIMES : Chapter 776 : JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[/url]




[SIZE=2][B][COLOR="#0033BB"]776.012[/COLOR]
Use of force in defense of person.—[/B][/SIZE]
                A person is justified in using 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.
                However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have
                a duty to retreat if:

(1)     He or she 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)     Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
[url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html]Title XLVI : CRIMES : CHAPTER 776 : JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE : 776.012[/URL]




[SIZE=2][B][COLOR="#006633"]776.013[/COLOR]
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—[/B][/SIZE]
(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 defensive force
                that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:[INDENT][COLOR="#A9A9A9"](a) The person against whom the defensive force was used 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[/COLOR]
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that
                an unlawful and forcible entry or [highlight]unlawful and forcible act was occurring[/highlight]
                or had occurred.[/INDENT]


[COLOR="#A9A9A9"](2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:[INDENT](a) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is
                using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 force
                knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to
                enter was a law enforcement officer.[/INDENT][/COLOR]


(3) 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.

[COLOR="#A9A9A9"](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:[INDENT](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.[/COLOR][/INDENT]
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
[url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html]Title XLVI : CRIMES : CHAPTER 776 : JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE : 776.013[/URL]

776.031 Use of force in defense of others

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
A person is justified in using 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



so in Florida, if Martin beieved that Zimmerman was going to hurt him, he had the right to strike first.
 
I provided the link. Its not a large article. I have faith you can find it.


Taking us for a ride?

Thunder, shame on you :thumbdown
 
A person is justified in using 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



so in Florida, if Martin beieved that Zimmerman was going to hurt him, he had the right to strike first.
Nope.
He wouldn't be justified.
 
I posted the relevent section above. Sorry, your ride is over.

Why did you cut out, the last few and important words at the end of the sentence?

To serve what purpose?
 
Why did you cut out, the last few and important words at the end of the sentence?

To serve what purpose?

if you follow me in a car and on foot, and continue to walk up to me, I have the right to assume you are putting me in danger, are about to use illegal force against me.

Zimmerman was not a police officer and did not identify himself as a police officer. With that in mind, Martin had every right to believe that Zimmerman was about to use illegal force against him.
 
A person is justified in using 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



so in Florida, if Martin beieved that Zimmerman was going to hurt him, he had the right to strike first.

The key part of that, is what you failed to highlight:


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


Do you understand what that means?

That means following someone is not justification for physically attacking them.
 
if you follow me in a car and on foot, and continue to walk up to me, I have the right to assume you are putting me in danger, are about to use illegal force against me.

Zimmerman was not a police officer and did not identify himself as a police officer. With that in mind, Martin had every right to believe that Zimmerman was about to use illegal force against him.

Read it again....

A person is justified in using 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

What unlawful force am I using against you?
 
The key part of that, is what you failed to highlight:
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


Do you understand what that means?

That means following someone is not justification for physically attacking them.

if Martin believed that Zimmerman was going to attack him, he had the right to use pre-emptive force to defend himself.

yeah, SYG is a stupid law.
 
if Martin believed that Zimmerman was going to attack him, he had the right to use pre-emptive force to defend himself.

Stop with the *IF* bull****
yeah, SYG is a stupid law.

No, it is not.

Its people that do not understand it that are *fill in the blank*
 
if you follow me in a car and on foot, and continue to walk up to me, I have the right to assume you are putting me in danger, are about to use illegal force against me.

Zimmerman was not a police officer and did not identify himself as a police officer. With that in mind, Martin had every right to believe that Zimmerman was about to use illegal force against him.

You are flat out wrong.

The word "imminent" means with little doubt... In other words if someone is charging you with a baseball bat, that is imminent... Following someone is not.

Now, do you have anything to back up your previous claim, or was that all you had?
 
if you follow me in a car and on foot, and continue to walk up to me, I have the right to assume you are putting me in danger, are about to use illegal force against me.

Zimmerman was not a police officer and did not identify himself as a police officer. With that in mind, Martin had every right to believe that Zimmerman was about to use illegal force against him.
if Martin believed that Zimmerman was going to attack him, he had the right to use pre-emptive force to defend himself.

yeah, SYG is a stupid law.
if I believe you are about to use illegal force against me, I have the right to strike you first.

hey, its Florida.
:doh:lamo:doh:lamo:doh
All the above showing that you do not understand that law as written or applied.

And why I keep telling you that you are wrong!
 
Back
Top Bottom