In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:06:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:25:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:21:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/



The law is not stupid. The absolute lack of common sense in America
is. So is the fact that the richest Americans have, since Eisenhower,
gradually bought more and more of the government until today, they own
it.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

The police are not available to protect you. They are available to
document the crimes you have committed or that have been committed
against you.

Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill innocent children, that's
great huh?

No, the stand your ground law is being mis-applied in this case.
Zimmerman drew the line in the sand to stand his ground, but when HE
crossed that line, that action made that law inapplicable.

Apparently, Florida is common sense challenged.

Well true, but I said nothing about Zimmerman.

Then, if you aren't referring to Zimmerman, you are totally wrong.
Then your statement, "Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill
innocent children, that's great huh?" is totally false.

Nope. Take a look at the victims.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:30:29 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:06:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:25:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:21:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/



The law is not stupid. The absolute lack of common sense in America
is. So is the fact that the richest Americans have, since Eisenhower,
gradually bought more and more of the government until today, they own
it.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

The police are not available to protect you. They are available to
document the crimes you have committed or that have been committed
against you.

Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill innocent children, that's
great huh?

No, the stand your ground law is being mis-applied in this case.
Zimmerman drew the line in the sand to stand his ground, but when HE
crossed that line, that action made that law inapplicable.

Apparently, Florida is common sense challenged.

Well true, but I said nothing about Zimmerman.

Then, if you aren't referring to Zimmerman, you are totally wrong.
Then your statement, "Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill
innocent children, that's great huh?" is totally false.

Nope. Take a look at the victims.

Since you didn't mention Zimmerman, what victims?

Follow my link, the answer is very clear.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.

On 6/3/12 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.



In Florida, a violent felony means minding your own business while
walking to the house where your dad is staying, armed with a soft drink
and a bag of candy. In those circumstances, a self-appointed vigilante
can confront you, get into a fight and then shoot you.

Viva la Florida.

On 6/3/2012 10:08 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/3/12 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.



In Florida, a violent felony means minding your own business while
walking to the house where your dad is staying, armed with a soft drink
and a bag of candy. In those circumstances, a self-appointed vigilante
can confront you, get into a fight and then shoot you.

Viva la Florida.

What! Treevon's dad didn't even live at the complex? So Treevon was
visiting a visitor to the complex? No wonder Zimmerman asked what
Treevon was doing there. I can only imagine what kind of punkish
response Treevon gave.

On 6/3/2012 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.


Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.

On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.



Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half
the country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to
see that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as
well as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....

On 6/3/12 4:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.



Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half the
country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to see
that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as well
as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....


Hilarious, just hilarious. You barely finished high school, you've never
even held a responsible job, and you're pontificating on legal matters.
What's next, your take on ion drive for spaceships?

In article , says...

On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.



Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

You fool, there is no "evidence" of that. There is hearsay.

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half
the country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to
see that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as
well as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....

Really? Someone accosting you in the night isn't reason to defend
yourself?