fiat_money wrote: »

charlie_danger wrote: »

Fiat doesnt have a law degree, so take his opinion as an opinion.

Real niggas don't have use appeals to authority or appeals to ignorance to make arguments bruh.

Step your "formulating logically in-fallacious arguments based on available information" game up yo.

im gonna have to click feelings for this post, its not that serious, its just a discussion, gaining understanding of others point(s) of views.

@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.

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.

@ vibe

we do know a fight occured, and we do know he approached trayvon asking him what he was doing there, we also know zimmermans state of mind as while he was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, he said "these assholes!, they always get away" so its reasonable to conclude that he was looking for a confrontation when he approached trayvon

@vibe

when you have the author's of the stand your ground law sayin it doesn't apply to this case, that's a strong indication that something is wrong here