Reply With Quote
Anyone who continues this argument is an absolute sucker tbh. CD refuses to drop the Florida law strawman that he's using to cover the fact that Trayvon acted like a thuggish re
Zimmerman's not stalking the dude with a gun would also have worked. Now you're thinking.
He can pay that fine.
Since he did have a gun, that would help any argument he thought he was in danger.
Then you aren't talking jury trials.YOU'RE talking Florida law, we're talking common sense.
What an odd thing to feel insecure about.With that second line I feel a little insecure cause I'm starting to feel like you're trolling the out of us
Anyone who continues this argument is an absolute sucker tbh. CD refuses to drop the Florida law strawman that he's using to cover the fact that Trayvon acted like a thuggish re
I wasn't aware he was found to be "stalking" anyone. Since you're so interested in Florida law, can you please tell me what Zimmerman did that night that was determined to be illegal?
Much more than a fine again as he'd be serving prison time. His parents would most likely be charged with a felony in Florida as well for their son illegally possessing a firearm and causing bodily harm. Awesome scenario you've dreamed up, everyone's a winner!
Not for possession of a firearm. first offense means community service and some driver's license issues. You should really read up on this stuff before you post.Only if they knew he walked around with a loaded gun. How will you prove that?His parents would most likely be charged with a felony in Florida as well for their son illegally possessing a firearm and causing bodily harm.As he would be alive, Trayvon would probably prefer that scenario. Shoot to kill first and take your chances in court. That's Florida law, and your chances in court are better there than most states.Awesome scenario you've dreamed up, everyone's a winner!
Just make sure you kill a person and don't wound a wall. That's serious.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 07-25-2013 at 11:40 AM.
All of your counter arguments are moot as an unjustifiable killing would have been committed by Trayvon.
Again, that's for the Florida jury to decide.
It's their law, not yours.
And how do you think the jury would rule, based on the scenario you've created?
Don't forget, you've set up the scenario as an illegally armed 17 year old shooting and killing someone who was following him.
An armed person following him alone at night.
Why would someone do that?
That is not an answer.
Just including factors you want to ignore.
Depends on the jury and the lawyers making the case. They would certainly bring up what you ignore.
I haven't ignored anything and have taken it all into account. Your scenario is not well thought out if you think Trayvon would walk.
Illegally armed 17 year shoots and kills a man who was legally following him. Dead man happened to have a concealed weapon. Bye bye Trayvon.
I'd say he'd have a chance which would be better were he not a black male.
Not necessarily. It's all opinion and not up to us. Florida law makes that argument possible and nothing you post will change that.Illegally armed 17 year shoots and kills a man who was legally following him. Dead man happened to have a concealed weapon. Bye bye Trayvon.
We aren't discussing a woman. Stick to your scenario.
Illegally armed is not an opinion, that would be a fact. And Florida law makes this a no brainer murder conviction. Agree to disagree I guess.Not necessarily. It's all opinion and not up to us. Florida law makes that argument possible and nothing you post will change that.
I am. There's a chance of acquittal.
No, Florida law explicitly provides a defense for the shooter. That's the whole point.Illegally armed is not an opinion, that would be a fact. And Florida law makes this a no brainer murder conviction. Agree to disagree I guess.
give it up, kingsfan. He'll keep bringing it back to "Well, if Trayvon had a gun he could've shot Zimmerman..and..and.. he COULD get acquitted if the jury was made up of complete morons!
Yep. No real counter to that. It is what it is.
Not for being followed.
You posted the law. Not my problem if you can't understand what it means.
It's clear here who doesn't understand the law.
Yes, you don't understand that law allows for the type of defense described above.
Please explain how being followed would justify killing someone, under this law.
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 cir stances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
The jury just has to conclude the shooters belief is reasonable. If they conclude the shooter had a reasonable belief that some serious was going to go down because he was being followed alone at night by a guy with a gun, that's it.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat it to you. You don't agree. Fine.
The shooter would have to lie to make them believe it was reasonable as he never knew the person following him had a gun.
agreed, always try to avoid coontact
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions