racist Yoni shows up to slander the [email protected]
"to use whatever force was necessary to stop Martin's assault"
what if the black were acting under FL's Stand Your Ground law and "felt' threatened by Zimmerman stalking and confronting him.
"Why? So far as I know, there hasn't been any suggestion Zimmerman was intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics or prescription medication."
because it's SOP to test suspects for alcohol and drugs.
racist Yoni shows up to slander the [email protected]
"to use whatever force was necessary to stop Martin's assault"
what if the black were acting under FL's Stand Your Ground law and "felt' threatened by Zimmerman stalking and confronting him.
Why are you lumping all African-Americans in with the New Black Panther Party or those sending death threats? To say that black outrage over this incident makes them responsible for the actions of extremists is ridiculous. And in the case you bring up, the accused has already been arrested and is currently on trial.
No. It's not. It's SOP to test suspects believed to be intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs for alcohol and drugs.
An independent eyewitness didn't see it that way. Also, "feeling threatened" is not justification for assaulting someone.
I'm not. I'm asking of African-Americans are tired of Al Sharpton coming out of the wood work every time something like this happens and pretending to represent all African-Americans?
Why doesn't someone tell him to shut the up? I would have thought that after the Taywana Braly episode, he would have never been taken seriously again but, , he keeps coming back.
Over what do blacks have to be outraged? There is absolutely zero evidence the shooting of Treyvon Martin was racially motivated.
No less reason for there to be outrage. Why can't a couple of drunk tourists wander into a neighborhood without getting murdered?
In FL, and other Stand Your Ground states,
"feeling threatened" IS a justification for killing someone.
Why are you acting like a hyper Jack Russel?
Maybe I'll start calling you Jack.
I haven't read the law but, I'm fairly confident in saying they don't list feelings as justification for deadly force under the stand your ground statute.
Maybe he wasn't a suspect. Besides, without probable cause or a warrant, it would violate his cons utional rights, unless he was asked and said "OK."
I've listened to the 911 call. It's not open to interpretation, despite your attempt to make it so.
Is there another tape, or some other conversation that might change things? Contextual or otherwise? If there is, I'll gladly hear it. If not, it would seem that I have all of the facts needed to render the opinion I gave.
Fearing for one's life isn't a feeling?
Spin away.
"We don't need you to do that."
Doesn't take a "newcooler" scientist to figure out that probably means stay where you are and don't pursue. But then, perhaps it does based on all of the quantum spins I see on the statement.
Relevant portion of the Florida statute:
I see "reasonably believes" not "fear."(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Your turn.
A couple of more points of interest in the Florida Law:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013 (This is the part that contained the language I posted in my previous post. -Y), or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).So, according to the two exceptions above, one of which I believe Zimmerman is claiming; even if Zimmerman provoked Martin, he could still use deadly force if a) Martin responded with force Zimmerman reasonably believed placed him in imminent danger of death or great bodily hard, or b) he, in good faith, retreated and was attacked by Martin.776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (I believe this is what is being claimed - that Zimmerman provoked Martin. - Y)
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I think Zimmerman has claimed he was walking back to his truck, after confronting Martin and before any physical confrontation had occurred, when Martin attacked him from behind.
Next?
No, but you must be a newcomer to understanding the scientific process. I hope you don't base your conclusions on a biased set of probability.
The dispatcher could not ask him to continue what could have been a dangerous situation. That would put the city/county in a position to be sued if Zimmerman was harmed.
The dispatcher did not imply "Do not follow." Sure, you can read it as that, but you can also read it differently. I see it as likely the dialog was just to avoid liability. These law enforcement people need all the help they can get and they know it. They just can't ask people to put themselves in harms way. It seems to me they let Zimmerman make his own choice.
WHO THE CARES IF HE WAS BLACK OR WHITE.
A GROWN adult SHOT and KILLED an unarmed 17 year old kid on a public walkway for no good reason. anyone who defends that.
So "feeling" IS part of the law...
I must be.
Yes yes.......CYA. And thus they suggested that he halt his pursuit. Zimmerman declined to do so despite having acknowledged said suggestion. At this point, one must ask why. This is especially important given the fact that Zimmerman had no authority, or cause (Martin was running from Z and up to that point, Z had not been witness to any wrongdoing on Martins part) to continue after Martin. Mind you, a unit was already on its way at this point.
He had cause (in his mind at least) to call authorities, which he did. Everything after that is suspect IMO.
I wonder what a Neighborhood Watch person is supposed to do according to the guidelines? Did he act within them? I'm hard pressed to believe that armed pursuit is part of that framework.
Choices........
I'll also add that earlier in the conversation the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to "Just let me know if he does anything ok?". I'll play you for a bit here and say that I happen to read that as the first request of Zimmerman to restrict his activity to "observation mode". So in my view he ignored two requests to simply observe rather than pursue or confront. And BOTH occured AFTER he had been notified that a unit was on its way.
We can twist this any number of ways, but I don't believe you can honestly assert that this was NOT an avoidable situation. Furthermore, I maintain that any prudent, clear minded individual would have in fact made it so.
So...
Could observation mode include changing your location to be able to continue to monitor?
From what I gathered, Zimmerman lost Martin, and was on his way back to his vehicle when the altercation happened. I don't know it as fact, but the bits and pieces seem to add up to Martin seeing he's being watched/followed, then backtracking to get the jump on Zimmerman.
Now...
Would you agree you don't have all the facts either?
Would you agree that Zimmerman may have acted in self defense in such a case?
I don't know why anyone is wasting their time debating this with Yoni or WC, both of them are pretty much confirmed racists or "racialists" at this point.
Might as well debate the fools on stormfront.
WWJD?
So we're supposed to believe that Martin ran from Z initially, only to attack Z a short time later as he (Z) was getting back into his truck? Obviously hes walking away from Martin at that point, which coincides with Martins initial agenda based on his reported actions.
In that context, an attack by Martin makes absolutely no sense.
I agree that under FL law Z was within his rights to do what he did, even if he was the instigator. You don't find that to be disconcerting at all?
See my post to Yoni.
But yes if Martin did indeed decide, for whatever reason, to stop fleeing and attack Z......then yes Z is most justified.
Your scenario is nonsensical though. I dont see Martin running then, being on the verge of escape, (since Z is getting back in his truck and riding off) all of a sudden being inclined to attack Z.
That take is rubbish IMO.
It really sucks that we have to go back to passing down the Black Codes to our kids again. We didn't think we'd have to teach our kids about it in 2012 and I'm sure Treyvon's dad thought the same as well because Treyvon broke a lot of the rules.
Yes. However, he was then told by the dispatcher that this action was not necessary.
"Ok, we don't need you to do that".
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
