Trayvon had drugs in his system and all injuries show signs of a struggle.

1567911

Replies

  • d.greend.green Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭✭✭
    trayvon-martin-girlfriend.jpg


    TM was tall and skinny. No wonder his nickname was "Slim".
  • riddlerapriddlerap G Unit 4 Life 50's MansionPosts: 13,565 ✭✭✭✭✭
    here is the problem with black people in these situations. let me give an example.

    when OJ got off, black people celebrated.. even though its pretty obvious he had involvement in that murder.

    when Casey Anthony got off, white people were mad and thought it was unfair, as well as blacks did.

    black people only "care" when it benefits their own kind, which makes all cases they "care" about seem fake/illegitimate. and then in the specific case of Travyon Martin, its clear that its fake because most of you decided based on your feelings and Travyon being black before knowing anything about the case.
    Trillfatefiat_money02daGBender RodriguezIheart~Caliidoitforhiphop10ROZAYTABERNACLE#1 pickstringer bell
  • Rey NegroRey Negro Posts: 2,774
    After paying at 7-11, Trayvon tries to shoplift some more candy, but the clerk sees him, so Trayvon walks to the back of the store and pretends to pick something up. Funny as hell. It's 0:30 to 0:53 in this video:


    smh...

    if the media highlighted everything i did at 17, i'd look guilty as fuck too.

    stealing a $0.50 bar of candy doesn't point to a massive character flaw nor excuse what happened to him. faggot.
  • Rey NegroRey Negro Posts: 2,774


    NOT IN FUCKING FLORIDA.


    in florida, it doesnt matter WHO started the fight.

    if you are in a fight and you feel as if your life is threatened, you can SHOOT to kill and claim SELF-DEFENSE.


    that is the law.



    we all get it, he shouldnt have followed dude. CORRECT.

    BUT he didnt do anything illegal or AGAINST the LAW when he disobeyed the dispatcher.

    would Trayvon be alive if dude didnt follow him? yes. but thats BEYOND the point at this stage.


    Zimmerman will walk on those 2nd degree murder charges.


    this is the justice, according to the LAW.

    Pretty hard to convince anyone you felt your life was threatened when you not only pursued an unarmed man who was considerably smaller than you, but you were also carrying a deadly weapon while you did it. IF he can prove he felt threatened is a pretty big IF. That's probably what the whole thing is going to come down to.



    its pretty easy to convince a jury that Zimmerman's life was in danger considering the gashes & broken nose. add that 911 call of Zimmerman screaming for help and its a wrap. his self-defense claim will be that dude was fucking him up so he had NO choice but to fire. they say the gunshot occurred between 1-18 inches, so it was a close range shot...

    see, without giving you the events that lead up to it, its pretty easy to paint a picture of a man who was defending himself from getting FURTHER fucked up.



    not to mention, there are witnesses that are corroborating Zimmerman's story.


    OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE. This is a situation involving 2 men and 2 men only, and only 1 of them is still alive. This means, theres only 1 side of the story that can be told in court, for real. In court, its not what about whats true or false, its about what you can PROVE.


    the law is FUCKED.

    so Trayvon's a grown man now?

    i hate this country sometimes.
    ROZAYTABERNACLE
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So, is there anyone on the IC with a law degree or in law school that can give me better insight on this case?
    BoldChild
  • riddlerapriddlerap G Unit 4 Life 50's MansionPosts: 13,565 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ghost tho wrote: »
    riddlerap wrote: »
    here is the problem with black people in these situations. let me give an example.

    when OJ got off, black people celebrated.. even though its pretty obvious he had involvement in that murder.

    when Casey Anthony got off, white people were mad and thought it was unfair, as well as blacks did.

    black people only "care" when it benefits their own kind, which makes all cases they "care" about seem fake/illegitimate. and then in the specific case of Travyon Martin, its clear that its fake because most of you decided based on your feelings and Travyon being black before knowing anything about the case.

    ...said the racist troll

    keep dismissing facts, maybe it'll help you sleep better at night.
    TrillfateIheart~Caliidoitforhiphop10stringer bell
  • TheEyeronic1TheEyeronic1 isntiteyeronic.com Posts: 9,198 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    Rey Negro wrote: »


    NOT IN FUCKING FLORIDA.


    in florida, it doesnt matter WHO started the fight.

    if you are in a fight and you feel as if your life is threatened, you can SHOOT to kill and claim SELF-DEFENSE.


    that is the law.



    we all get it, he shouldnt have followed dude. CORRECT.

    BUT he didnt do anything illegal or AGAINST the LAW when he disobeyed the dispatcher.

    would Trayvon be alive if dude didnt follow him? yes. but thats BEYOND the point at this stage.


    Zimmerman will walk on those 2nd degree murder charges.


    this is the justice, according to the LAW.

    Pretty hard to convince anyone you felt your life was threatened when you not only pursued an unarmed man who was considerably smaller than you, but you were also carrying a deadly weapon while you did it. IF he can prove he felt threatened is a pretty big IF. That's probably what the whole thing is going to come down to.



    its pretty easy to convince a jury that Zimmerman's life was in danger considering the gashes & broken nose. add that 911 call of Zimmerman screaming for help and its a wrap. his self-defense claim will be that dude was fucking him up so he had NO choice but to fire. they say the gunshot occurred between 1-18 inches, so it was a close range shot...

    see, without giving you the events that lead up to it, its pretty easy to paint a picture of a man who was defending himself from getting FURTHER fucked up.



    not to mention, there are witnesses that are corroborating Zimmerman's story.


    OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE. This is a situation involving 2 men and 2 men only, and only 1 of them is still alive. This means, theres only 1 side of the story that can be told in court, for real. In court, its not what about whats true or false, its about what you can PROVE.


    the law is FUCKED.

    so Trayvon's a grown man now?

    i hate this country sometimes.


    No, man. I'm just painting the picture that the defense is going to obviously sketch out to the jury.

    Homie was tall as fuck. U think Zimmerman knew how old Trayvon was?


    Let's pretend that in an alternate universe, Trayvon did not get killed that night. They woulda charged that man as an adult for felony battery charges. This is FLORIDA.

    Keep hating the country, homie.
  • Mr.LVMr.LV Posts: 8,605 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So a 17 year old fucked up a grown ass man and had that grown ass man screaming like a bitch this story is crazy.
    idoitforhiphop10ROZAYTABERNACLE
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    Iheart~Caliidoitforhiphop10
  • riddlerapriddlerap G Unit 4 Life 50's MansionPosts: 13,565 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ghost tho wrote: »
    @riddlerap... FACTS are GZ has the criminal background, anger management and alcohol abuse issues...
    u wont address that tho..

    so everyone should be judged by only their negative past, oh ok. lets be rational!

    idoitforhiphop10
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So, is there anyone on the IC with a law degree or in law school that can give me better insight on this case?

    anyone?
    BoldChildTrillfate
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So, is there anyone on the IC with a law degree or in law school that can give me better insight on this case?

    anyone?

    No? oh.... so, there's no actual expert in the field of law on the IC?

    Yet, there are plenty of people pulling quotes, stats, "evidence" <--- used loosely like a used tampon, and factual discussions with lawyers about this case... Interesting.
    BoldChild
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

    The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

    So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

    Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

    And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.
    Noir
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

    Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.
  • riddlerapriddlerap G Unit 4 Life 50's MansionPosts: 13,565 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

    Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

    so it'd make you feel better if the lawyer came on to the IC to post what people like fiat are posting/linking? its the same info.
    TrillfateGucci Scott KingMs.Scorp
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

    The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

    So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

    Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

    And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.


    interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

    Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.


    we aren't in a court of law trying the case, we are discussing it on an internet message board, which again is not a requirement to have a degree in law, or be a student of law. if you need legal advice on this case, this would obviously not be the place to seek it.
    BoldChildNoir
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    riddlerap wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

    Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.

    so it'd make you feel better if the lawyer came on to the IC to post what people like fiat are posting/linking? its the same info.

    actually, yes. However, did you know that 50 was in the hospital? I almost cried :(
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    ultimately a jury of Zimmerman's peers(people like you, I and others) commenting on this will decide this case, and having a law degree or being a law student is not a requirement to be a juror.

    Yet, the evidence would be presented to the jurors by experts aka lawyers, you know those people that went to law school, took the bar exams & passed it.


    we aren't in a court of law trying the case, we are discussing it on an internet message board, which again is not a requirement to have a degree in law, or be a student of law. if you need legal advice on this case, this would obviously not be the place to seek it.

    You mad? Are you in Law School? Did you pass the bar to be a lawyer to give expert advice on this topic.

    Keyword is expert. All of you guys are just stating opinions, tbh.
    FuriousOne
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.
    ValkyriaFuriousOne
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2012
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

    The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

    So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

    Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

    And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.


    interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.
    You can have whatever thought process you want; but the fact remains that in the US government, the judicial system is tasked with interpreting and applying the laws, not the legislators.

    In fact, since the legislator you're attempting to do an appeal to authority to, assumed Zimmerman confronted Treyvon--although that has yet to be proven--to arrive at his conclusion, this serves as an example as to why the opinions of legislators are inconsequential when it comes to the interpretation and application of written law:
    Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. - Rep. Dennis Baxley


    ^^So yeh, in addition to the lack of a "non-pursuit" clause in the written law to validate what he is saying; the unsubstantiated assumption further weakens his claim.
  • NoirNoir Ms. Fat AHH 2014 In yo bed with yo man eatin bon bons and ice cream Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.

    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @fiat
    they didn't say that, so this would just be your opinion. you could say that's just their opinion to, but seeing as they wrote the law, their opinion would hold more weight.
    Basic reasoning, based on the actual law as it is written, taken directly from the Florida Senate's government website:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.
    Unless you can prove that Zimmerman could not "reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself", then me saying the above law can apply here is correct.

    If they say the law does not apply here, even though, as it is written above, the law can apply here; then there is a difference in the law as it is written and as they envision it.

    If they wrote the law, and there was a difference in the law as it was written and as they envisioned it; then they mis-wrote it.

    Either that, or they simply changed their minds after the fact.


    reposting the laws over and over again doesn't do much when the authors of the law already spoke their views on this case. You said maybe they miswrote the law, they don't think so, a more accurate depiction would be maybe people are misinterpreting the law. The authors said the law does not apply in this case when Zimmerman began to pursue trayvon, regardless of if you want to believe he stopped pursuing him at some point. Its irrational and illogical to think that any law would support someone using deadly force on anyone they feel is a threat to them, especially if they pursued them in the first place. I could be wrong, but the author's themselves, who wrote the law, seem to be saying the same thing about this particular case. I haven't heard them speak out on other stand your ground laws and say this, and there are a few of these cases going on in florida right now. The fact that they said something about this case, is very telling and wont look good for the defense if this is what they plan to use.
    I re-post the law, since the law and how it applies to this case is what's being discussed here. Even if the authors say it doesn't apply, that does not change what is written. I could say "Anyone who eats an apple should be killed.", if someone eats an apple; and I later say this does not apply to them, that does not change what I wrote.

    The main reason we have a judicial branch of government is because the legislative branch is not the "be-all and end-all" when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws.

    So, the moment what they wrote became a law, their conclusions on what it applied to became inconsequential.

    Therefore, since the judicial system interprets/applies the laws, and doesn't simply make rulings based on the feelings of legislators; the law, as it is written, is of the utmost preponderance here.

    And the law, as it is written, can be applied to Zimmerman in this case.


    interesting you say rulings aren't based on feelings of the legislators, but you have feelings that the law can be applied to zimmerman. you cant say its not a feeling because you don't have all the facts of this case. at some point you have to have a "feeling" about it. you saying the law can be applied to zimmerman, doesn't make this a fact, esp when the authors have stated otherwise, another indication of you having feelings about it. you take the last word on this, because no matter what you say, it wont manipulate my thought process. they wrote the law, so therefore they would have a better understanding of it then you, I , or anyone else.
    You can have whatever thought process you want; but the fact remains that in the US government, the judicial system is tasked with interpreting and applying the laws, not the legislators.

    In fact, since the legislator you're attempting to do an appeal to authority to, assumed Zimmerman confronted Treyvon--although that has yet to be proven--to arrive at his conclusion, this serves as an example as to why the opinions of legislators are inconsequential when it comes to the interpretation and application of written law:
    Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for anyone who pursues and confronts people. - Rep. Dennis Baxley


    ^^So yeh, in addition to the lack of a "non-pursuit" clause in the written law to validate what he is saying; the unsubstantiated assumption further weakens his claim.


    you are assuming also, so your point is no better than the legislators. its all assumption when you were not there, therefore you cannot say as a matter of fact the law applies to zimmerman, you just want it to because all along you've been posting this law, unaware that the very makers of the law don't think it applies here. lack of the non-pursuit doesn't weaken his stance, its not there because any reasonable person knows that if you start a fight and happen to be getting your ass kicked, that does not give you the right to end someone's life. I don't know what to say if you believe otherwise. its interesting that you are now trying to disprove the statement of the author of the law that you've been in here crusading all along.
  • Hyde ParkeHyde Parke Posts: 2,573
    Hyde Parke wrote: »
    @Charlie_danger

    you stating the obvious baby. do you have a degree in everything you speak on? I don't think anyone in here said they were an expert, in law school, or had a law degree. reiterating that we are not in court trying the case, actually makes you seem to be the mad one by asking the question at least 2x then replying to yourself.


    Im not mad, Im just ANGRY that someone would ignore my most amazing question ever on the IC.

    Plus, I am asking for someone's point of view that are in the field of law on their expert opinion on the case..

    Only in english and psychology, that's where my degrees be for :)

    well I hope someone who has a law degree comes in here and gives you what it Is you want
    FuriousOne
Sign In or Register to comment.