That's not what you said.Why must I confront after four minutes pass and I decide not to continue home at that time?
you don't have to confront, you can just continue home. Seems like the smart thing to do doesn't it.
That's not what you said.Why must I confront after four minutes pass and I decide not to continue home at that time?
lol new sock puppet, same old results
If you are threatened by the man following you why would you stay unless you are looking for a confrontation?
You didn't answer the question.
Original account.
To answer your question, you don't need to leave and you can stay, which brings us back to this.....
So the four minute scenario was just bull ?
I just want to get this straight before we continue. The four minute thing is completely off the table because you realize it was a dead end for you.
Right?
The four minutes doesn't really matter to me. If we need to take it off the table to get an answer from you so be it. This is your hypothetical after all.
And once again.....
No it's yours. You are the one trying to set all the conditions. Some just don't work out for you.
The four minutes really meant something to you, otherwise you would not have brought it up.
Now that you have walked back from the four minute scenario, we can continue.
Under Florida law, I am under no obligation to flee before using force. You seem to have a real problem with the law. I don't blame you.
The four minutes doesn't mean to me, but as we were comparing your situation to Trayvon's I thought it would be appropriate.
You still refuse to answer the question. You are correct, you do not have to flee. By choosing not to flee you are deciding on a confrontation no?
Of course it meant something to you.
Not necessarily. I could just sit down and see what happens for example.You still refuse to answer the question. You are correct, you do not have to flee. By choosing not to flee you are deciding on a confrontation no?
And I don't know why you are trying to pin me down into hypothetically shooting anyone. I explained the law to you three times after you posted it and failed to understand it. The shooter makes the choice if he feels threatened, the court decides if it is reasonable.
Period.
I couldn't tell you what I personally would do; your scenario is really badly executed -- I did tell you what the options are under Florida law if one feels threatened. That's it.
Riiiiiiight. You couldn't tell me what you'd do.......what a ing cop out. You know you'd retreat, you just won't admit it because it flies in the face of your suggesting Trayvon should have shot and killed Zimmerman for following him.
It's hard for you to admit that Trayvon should have been smarter and just continued home.
What I would do isn't at issue. What I could do is and the part you just can't get.
He should have been carrying and shot Costanza. He'd be alive today.It's hard for you to admit that Trayvon should have been smarter and just continued home.
And we've come full circle again.
Illegally possessing a firearm and shooting someone for following you lands you in prison, but hey, at least you are alive.
The possession would not -- again, you are arguing from ignorance. And, once again, the decision on the shooting would rest with a jury.
Illegal firearm possession by a minor that causes death is most definitely a crime. You can call it a stupid law all you want but you know Trayvon would be serving prison time if he would have shot and killed him. The law was not on his side in that scenario.
Up to a jury.
Well no .
17 year old illegally carrying a firearm shoots and kills neighborhood watch guy who was following him.
Good luck with that one.
how fascinating.
Translation : I'm not satisfied with the first reply you gave me so I will just try to somehow make you look like some sort of misinformed tin foil hat wearing bag posters and paint you as bad guy so the burden of proof is you.......Am I close esse?
Last edited by mouse; 07-28-2013 at 03:06 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)