Where should the line be drawn...

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, it did not appear to in this case. The aggressor exception was not a part of the jury instructions.

that is because the SYG law was not used by the defense

Any reasonable person would find Zimmerman's behavior threatening.

illogical and unreasonable. following someone might feel threatening, but it's simply not by definition of the law.

Again, you are dropping the context. Why do you fucking douchebags insist on pretending that Zimmerman just happened to be going in the same direction as Martin. He was following him. The detectives asked Zimmerman repeatedly why he did not identify himself while questioning him and told him that he should have, that it is what would expected of an officer in a similar situation. That's why Serino wanted him charged.

I don't recall ANYONE claiming such bullshit. I do recall several of us on here saying that zimmerman made some bad choices, but we also said that so did martin. the facts of the case though are that zimmerman did not break the law by following martin, but martin DID break the law by assaulting zimmerman.

 

[Bonestorm]

that is because the SYG law was not used by the defense

Doesn't the agressor exception apply to garden-variety self-defense?

illogical and unreasonable. following someone might feel threatening, but it's simply not by definition of the law.

What definition of the law are you using here, STY?

I don't recall ANYONE claiming such bullshit. I do recall several of us on here saying that zimmerman made some bad choices, but we also said that so did martin. the facts of the case though are that zimmerman did not break the law by following martin, but martin DID break the law by assaulting zimmerman.

Well, as has been pointed out to you, we don't know that Martin was party that initiated the use of force, so the bold is not a true statement. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman threw the first punch and subsequently got his ass kicked and shot Martin.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Doesn't the agressor exception apply to garden-variety self-defense?

can you be more specific? garden variety can mean so many things. i'm pretty sure that you aren't trying to say that someone calling your mother a cock sucker gives anyone the right to punch them in the nose, correct?

What definition of the law are you using here, STY?

that one must be in fear of their life or serious bodily injury to use deadly force. Notice that there is NO LAW anywhere that says force may be used because someone is following you or calling you names.

Well, as has been pointed out to you, we don't know that Martin was party that initiated the use of force, so the bold is not a true statement. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman threw the first punch and subsequently got his ass kicked and shot Martin.

yes, that is possible, but not probably. It's a very sorry individual indeed that can't land a sucker punch. such an individual would probably not be able to find their weapon while being beat upon.

 

[Phantasmal]

Doesn't the agressor exception apply to garden-variety self-defense?




What definition of the law are you using here, STY?




Well, as has been pointed out to you, we don't know that Martin was party that initiated the use of force, so the bold is not a true statement. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman threw the first punch and subsequently got his ass kicked and shot Martin.

Trayvon was standing his ground because Zimmerman pulled a gun on him.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Trayvon was standing his ground because Zimmerman pulled a gun on him.

I would dearly love to see the evidence you have that supports this. the prosecution would have liked to have it.

 

[Bonestorm]

can you be more specific? garden variety can mean so many things. i'm pretty sure that you aren't trying to say that someone calling your mother a cock sucker gives anyone the right to punch them in the nose, correct?

Garden variety self-defense as in I shot the guy that was beating me up. So, like, if Zimmerman was the primary aggressor he looses the right to invoke self-defnese as justification. (I realize the primary agressor can re-gain the defense in certain circumstances, but since hte initial instruction wasn't given, neither was that one).

that one must be in fear of their life or serious bodily injury to use deadly force. Notice that there is NO LAW anywhere that says force may be used because someone is following you or calling you names.

Aren't you conflating concepts here. I mean, you can fell threatened and justifiably use less than deadly force if you reasonaby believe that less than deadly force is imminently going to be used against you, no?

yes, that is possible, but not probably. It's a very sorry individual indeed that can't land a sucker punch. such an individual would probably not be able to find their weapon while being beat upon.

I'll take possible even though I think you're wrong. The important point is that the claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and that Zimmerman did no wrong is not necessarily true.

 

[Legion Troll]

I wonder who would NOT have shot Martin if he was inflicting this kind of damage on them?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Garden variety self-defense as in I shot the guy that was beating me up. So, like, if Zimmerman was the primary aggressor he looses the right to invoke self-defnese as justification. (I realize the primary agressor can re-gain the defense in certain circumstances, but since hte initial instruction wasn't given, neither was that one).

I don't consider having anyone 'beating me up' as garden variety, but ok. let's go with that. IF zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he does indeed lose the right to claim self defense.

Aren't you conflating concepts here. I mean, you can fell threatened and justifiably use less than deadly force if you reasonaby believe that less than deadly force is imminently going to be used against you, no?

appropriate levels of force cannot be used in self defense claims, realistically anyway. the theory exists, but finding a prosecutor that can draw clear lines for a jury as to what a reasonable person would consider appropriate levels of force is too improbable, unless the aggressor is trying to pummel you with a pool noodle or something. and again, being followed (with no verbal or physical threats being present) is not grounds to feel threatened enough to use force. that's been the law for a long time.

I'll take possible even though I think you're wrong. The important point is that the claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and that Zimmerman did no wrong is not necessarily true.

true, there can always be the exception to the rule, but those are rare.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I wonder who would NOT have shot Martin if he was inflicting this kind of damage on them?

jarod would have shot him in the nads.

 

[Jarod]

jarod would have shot him in the nads.

Nope, I would not have been in that position In the first place.

 

[Timshel]

that is because the SYG law was not used by the defense

I don't see how that matters. The statute makes no mention of syg. It's not conditional on the use of syg by the defense.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

illogical and unreasonable. following someone might feel threatening, but it's simply not by definition of the law.

Yes, it is illogical and unreasonable to follow someone around in the dark. Most people with good sense know that it is a great way to get yourself into a physical altercation.

Where does the law define what is threatening?

I don't recall ANYONE claiming such bullshit. I do recall several of us on here saying that zimmerman made some bad choices, but we also said that so did martin. the facts of the case though are that zimmerman did not break the law by following martin, but martin DID break the law by assaulting zimmerman.

Grind claimed exactly that.

 

[Timshel]

yes, that is possible, but not probably. It's a very sorry individual indeed that can't land a sucker punch. such an individual would probably not be able to find their weapon while being beat upon.

Who is to say he threw a punch? That is not the only possible aggressive act. He may have just tried to grab Trayvon or, as many believe, he may have went to pull his gun or did pull his gun.

 

[Timshel]

that one must be in fear of their life or serious bodily injury to use deadly force. Notice that there is NO LAW anywhere that says force may be used because someone is following you or calling you names.

Actually, one may justifiably use force if you reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. Zimmerman's behavior of following Trayvon and failing to identify could easily have made Trayvon reasonably believe that use of force against him was imminent.

As for the bad names, you are just using a strawman. For the umpteenth time, I am not saying it justifies the use of force in response. I am saying it provokes and that a reasonable person should expect that it may provoke a response. To then shoot to kill, without exhausting efforts to retreat, and claim self defense seems too easy of a way to get away with murder.

 

[Phantasmal]

Actually, one may justifiably use force if you reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. Zimmerman's behavior of following Trayvon and failing to identify could easily have made Trayvon reasonably believe that use of force against him was imminent.

As for the bad names, you are just using a strawman. For the umpteenth time, I am not saying it justifies the use of force in response. I am saying it provokes and that a reasonable person should expect that it may provoke a response. To then shoot to kill, without exhausting efforts to retreat, and claim self defense seems too easy of a way to get away with murder.

I also believe in the interview, by Zimmerman's own admission, he didn't try to fight back in other ways, he just shot Trayvon.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Strawman. It has nothing to do with whether words hurt or whether one is justified in assaulting another.

Threatening language, like "I am going to kick your ass" or something similar. A person should not be able to provoke another into a fight and then shoot them after they get punched.

Someone saying that they are going to kick your ass is only a threat, if they then behave in a manner that would show they intend to follow through on the threat.

 

[Steelplate]

Someone saying that they are going to kick your ass is only a threat, if they then behave in a manner that would show they intend to follow through on the threat.

Then....just shoot them....not run away while dialing 911 on your cell phone....just end their lives.... I disagree.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then....just shoot them....not run away while dialing 911 on your cell phone....just end their lives.... I disagree.

I'm sure you know what you were trying to say; but I'm sorry it's not very understandable.

 

[Steelplate]

I'm sure you know what you were trying to say; but I'm sorry it's not very understandable.

Oh...sorry....I thought you wanted someone to finish your line of thought.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh...sorry....I thought you wanted someone to finish your line of thought.

In that case, you failed; but then, you haven't been able to even finish most of your own line of thoughts.

 

[Timshel]

Someone saying that they are going to kick your ass is only a threat, if they then behave in a manner that would show they intend to follow through on the threat.

.... finish the thought.