quote:

someone walking up to you and SPEAKING to you is NOT justicication to attack someone!

quote:

The prosecution is also required to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is in the jury instructions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

someone walking up to you and SPEAKING to you is NOT justicication to attack someone!

It is here, evidently.
People who think that way are why I carry a gun.

quote:

he had enough time to call the police, to ask if he should follow (he was told not to by the dispatcher)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

The prosecution is also required to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is in the jury instructions.

You are presenting facts to someone blinded by prejudice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 I appreciate that the person shot is just as dead but it doesn't seem unreasonable to point out there's a moral and legal difference between murdering and killing someone Mnottertail.

Actually, you are both right, in a manner of speaking.

In the old testament, there was a difference between murder, which the commandment correctly translated is "Thou shalt not commit murder" which is what it said in the original Aramaic that it was written in.

Killing someone in self defense was not murder IF that person was armed, neither was it murder in combat, again if the enemy was armed, unless it, in both cases, it was done due to a commandment from god, as God commanded Joshua to cleanse the holy land before the Israelites could enter and take possession of it.

So you see, in the strictest moral sense, as put forth in the bible, Zimmerman did commit murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Your racism is expected, as is your lack of intellect in any endeavor.

And your absolute, complete, total and utter denial of the facts/truth is expected, as was your playing the race card in every discussion when you can't refute the facts/truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

he had enough time to call the police, to ask if he should follow (he was told not to by the dispatcher)

No. Hell no. He was not.
English is my first language. I am fluent in it. The only thing the dispatcher said regarding GZ following TM is- and I quote: "We don't need you to do that".

That is a simple declarative statement.
It can (perhaps reasonably) be stretched enough to be considered a suggestion, but even that is a personal interpretation.
But as a fact, as a cold, hard, indisputable fact, Zimmerman was not ordered, commanded, or "told not to" follow Trayvon Martin.

FACT number two is that police dispatchers have no authority to order anyone to do, not do, or cease doing, anything at any time.

George Zimmerman was absolutely within his rights to follow Martin, and to question him.

FACT number three is that the last statement, above, is true independent of accusing Zimmerman of racial profiling- which is a perfectly legal thing for individual citizens to do (thank God), whether they are looking for thugs or prom dates

quote:

In my experience, "you don't need to do that" is a 'feminine' way of telling a male caller "don't fucking do that!".

quote:

If you notice, my first response is a lawsuit, using profiling as a civil rights violation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

he had enough time to call the police, to ask if he should follow (he was told not to by the dispatcher)

No. Hell no. He was not.
English is my first language. I am fluent in it. The only thing the dispatcher said regarding GZ following TM is- and I quote: "We don't need you to do that".

That is a simple declarative statement.
It can (perhaps reasonably) be stretched enough to be considered a suggestion, but even that is a personal interpretation.
But as a fact, as a cold, hard, indisputable fact, Zimmerman was not ordered, commanded, or "told not to" follow Trayvon Martin.

FACT number two is that police dispatchers have no authority to order anyone to do, not do, or cease doing, anything at any time.

George Zimmerman was absolutely within his rights to follow Martin, and to question him.

FACT number three is that the last statement, above, is true independent of accusing Zimmerman of racial profiling- which is a perfectly legal thing for individual citizens to do (thank God), whether they are looking for thugs or prom dates

quote:

There is no difference in murder and killing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Your racism is expected, as is your lack of intellect in any endeavor.

And your absolute, complete, total and utter denial of the facts/truth is expected, as was your playing the race card in every discussion when you can't refute the facts/truth.

Truth has not been in evidence, nor has any fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

he had enough time to call the police, to ask if he should follow (he was told not to by the dispatcher)

No. Hell no. He was not.
English is my first language. I am fluent in it. The only thing the dispatcher said regarding GZ following TM is- and I quote: "We don't need you to do that".

That is a simple declarative statement.
It can (perhaps reasonably) be stretched enough to be considered a suggestion, but even that is a personal interpretation.
But as a fact, as a cold, hard, indisputable fact, Zimmerman was not ordered, commanded, or "told not to" follow Trayvon Martin.

FACT number two is that police dispatchers have no authority to order anyone to do, not do, or cease doing, anything at any time.

George Zimmerman was absolutely within his rights to follow Martin, and to question him.

FACT number three is that the last statement, above, is true independent of accusing Zimmerman of racial profiling- which is a perfectly legal thing for individual citizens to do (thank God), whether they are looking for thugs or prom dates

Fact creepy ass cracker indicates racial profiling but by Martin, not Zimmerman.

quote:

nor has any fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Your racism is expected, as is your lack of intellect in any endeavor.

And your absolute, complete, total and utter denial of the facts/truth is expected, as was your playing the race card in every discussion when you can't refute the facts/truth.

Truth has not been in evidence, nor has any fact.

Really? That's very interesting. Means nothing the State/Prosecution has presented thus far has been the truth or fact...meaning they have no case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

DomKen post223: Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Good. I feel I've accomplished something. Now let us all conform to that binary standard in our further discussions of the facts. GZ likely meets both of those tests of innocence, though he only needs to meet one in Florida.
And don't intentionally confuse the force aggressor, with party who 'starts things' whatever that means to readers. For example a Florida woman doesn't forfeit self-defense when she jealously slaps and kicks a man outside a bar in a non-domestic relations incident.
. . . Or does she?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

Owner post 215: You start a fight, anything bad that happens......to yourself...... or the victim, even accidentally....is on you.

This notion, that you keep pushing, Owner, has no foundation in Common law or US law or common sense.

Actually it does, part of the legal basis for self defense is that you were not the aggressor. For instance in Florida
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being the aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Wrong. Zimmerman doesn't have to argue anything. He's innocent until proven guilty. It is the State which has to argue and, moreover, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime they charged him with.