Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of your assumptions are false. Zimmerman did not hunt the boy. The Martin fellow approached Zimmerman and then ran off making Zimmerman think he was up to no good. Martin was bashing Zimmermans head into the concrete. The pictures and witness's attest to it. The media was at fault along with Sharpton for trying to sway public opinion to find Zimmerman guilty before the masses.
hi can u see my thinkin number 2419 none of this makes any sence. I'm just hearin about it now because Im really busy with workin. have i missed something in 2419? Maybe I havent got it right.
hi can u see my thinkin number 2419 none of this makes any sence. I'm just hearin about it now because Im really busy with workin. have i missed something in 2419? Maybe I havent got it right.
That is the purpose of neighborhood watch. To report and investigate anything suspicious. Martin raised suspicion by pacing homes in a rain storm. He raised that suspicion to a higher level by approaching Zimmerman and then taking off running and it didn't matter if Martin was unarmed.
OMG, we're back to the "Neighborhood Watch" nonsense again. Zimmerman was NOT acting in the capacity of a NW person, he was not following NW protocol.
Neighborhood watch is irrelevent anyway. He had a right to carry his firearm and he was legally permitted.. Neighborhood watch has no more or less rights than any other citizen.
That is the purpose of neighborhood watch. To report and investigate anything suspicious. Martin raised suspicion by pacing homes in a rain storm. He raised that suspicion to a higher level by approaching Zimmerman and then taking off running and it didn't matter if Martin was unarmed.
report yes, but not get into altercations with people he thinks are guilty for whatever reason. Zimmerman is NOT a cop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
Neighborhood watch is irrelevent anyway. He had a right to carry his firearm and he was legally permitted.. Neighborhood watch has no more or less rights than any other citizen.
Agree. He does have a right to carry, but he does not have a right to shoot anyone unless came after him trying to commit a felony.
Zimmerman lost the ability to claim anyone was coming after him when he admitted he was the one doing the following. Makes no sense at all, regardless of the missing facts.
Agree. He does have a right to carry, but he does not have a right to shoot anyone unless came after him trying to commit a felony.
Zimmerman lost the ability to claim anyone was coming after him when he admitted he was the one doing the following. Makes no sense at all, regardless of the missing facts.
That's simply not true. Zimmerman had and still has the right to defend himself against an attacker, period.
That's simply not true. Zimmerman had and still has the right to defend himself against an attacker, period.
he does have a right to defend himself, under regular self defense laws, he does not have the right under stand your ground. Under regular self defense though, he can only return non-lethal force with non-lethal force. If Trayvon Martin hit him with a bag of skittles, then Zimmerman option is to hit back with assorted candy, not bullets. but that determination is up to a jury, which is why the cops were dumb to dispense with the matter under stand your ground.
Stand your ground protects individuals who use lethal force on a would-be attacker in order to prevent a felony. Zimmerman by his own account was the one who did the stalking. You cannot instigate something then stand your ground. That's like me breaking into your house and when I see you coming at me with a bat I shot you in order to prevent the battery and claim that I was just standing my ground. I would have no ground to stand on, as Zimmerman hasn't in his case
he does have a right to defend himself, under regular self defense laws, he does not have the right under stand your ground. Under regular self defense though, he can only return non-lethal force with non-lethal force. If Trayvon Martin hit him with a bag of skittles, then Zimmerman option is to hit back with assorted candy, not bullets. but that determination is up to a jury, which is why the cops were dumb to dispense with the matter under stand your ground.
Stand your ground protects individuals who use lethal force on a would-be attacker in order to prevent a felony. Zimmerman by his own account was the one who did the stalking. You cannot instigate something then stand your ground. That's like me breaking into your house and when I see you coming at me with a bat I shot you in order to prevent the battery and claim that I was just standing my ground. I would have no ground to stand on, as Zimmerman hasn't in his case
Again, at no point did Zimmerman ever say anything whatsoever about stalking and you're still wrong. Your example refers to private property and someone breaking the law to enter. Zimmerman and Martin both had the legal right to be where they were so no laws were broken by either person in that case. Zimmerman legally could follow Martin down the sidewalk, again that's not against the law. Martin however could not attack Zimmerman and beat his head against the ground, that's illegal and endangers someone's life. Zimmerman felt in fear for his life and he defended himself which he legally could do.
Again, at no point did Zimmerman ever say anything whatsoever about stalking and you're still wrong. Your example refers to private property and someone breaking the law to enter. Zimmerman and Martin both had the legal right to be where they were so no laws were broken by either person in that case. Zimmerman legally could follow Martin down the sidewalk, again that's not against the law. Martin however could not attack Zimmerman and beat his head against the ground, that's illegal and endangers someone's life. Zimmerman felt in fear for his life and he defended himself which he legally could do.
nope you are the one wrong buddy. In terms of protecting property in a dwelling you can react with deadly force even if non deadly force is used by the intruder. It has been so for centuries under the castle doctrine.the law is the law and zimmerman broke it
nope you are the one wrong buddy. In terms of protecting property in a dwelling you can react with deadly force even if non deadly force is used by the intruder. It has been so for centuries under the castle doctrine.the law is the law and zimmerman broke it
I don't know the laws in florida but I know in Texas you don't have to be within your dwelling to use deadly force if you feel endangered. You can use deadly force virtually anywhere to save your life or property. You are responsible for any collateral damage, but you are perfectly within your rights if you are a concealed carry License holder to protect yourself anytime and anywhere. I am reasonably certain that the laws would be similar in florida or what would be the purpose of a CHL??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
