What's new

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

The issue was the very different applications of section 776.012 and 776.013. "This Second District Court of Appeals itself pointed out that section 776.013 (3) does not apply to one's home, but only to "any other place [i.e., other than a dwelling, residence, or vehicle]..." What is so hard to understand?

Section 776.012 applies to the Zimmerman case. Section 776.013 applies only if this event had happened in the Zimmerman or Martin home. That is the same point I made to you over a year ago!

I do not think you are reading your own posts or you made a typo. You stated in 776.013 that it does not apply to the home. In the second quote you staed that 776.013 only applies if in the home.

Which is your opinion? I agree with the first and that is why I brought up 776.013. I dissagree with your second post because 776.012 does not apply to events out side ones home.
 
Glad Bob Owens is expert on the effects of psychoactive jobs

Actually, it should have been painfully obvious, in the context of my other remarks, that I engaged in a brief bit of hyperbole, designed to illustrate that the "trial" going on in the press, and of late being fed by the defense, can and does take bits of " information" and thought and spin them every and any which way, depending on the teller's aims, opinions, goals, or perspective.

That is at best. The very best.

It only gets worse from there.

Somewhere along the way, we encounter those, like yourself, ( you said it.... ) who have already made up their minds, and having done so, listen to and worse spread only the bits that support the ideology they have already decided to adopt.

Like I said, hopefully, for the good of society, the citizens actually involved in the trial will take their duty seriously, and rise above that base behavior.
 
I do not think you are reading your own posts or you made a typo. You stated in 776.013 that it does not apply to the home. In the second quote you staed that 776.013 only applies if in the home.

Which is your opinion? I agree with the first and that is why I brought up 776.013. I dissagree with your second post because 776.012 does not apply to events out side ones home.
Section 776.012 makes a specific reference to "duty to retreat" and lays out the circumstances where you can and cannot use lethal force. They are generally used in cases where a person is in a place they have every legal right to be in. Both Zimmerman and Martin had every legal right to be where they were. So if you claim your use of lethal force in self-defense was justified, you will at least need to put forth evidence that the requirements of 776.012 were satisfied.

…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 circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Section 776.013 makes very specific references where you are justified in using lethal force with no requirement to exercise a "duty to retreat".

A. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

B. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Unless there is evidence not posted on the State website or Zimmerman's Legal Defense Team website, there is nothing to prove that Zimmerman or Martin were in their respective dwelling, residence or vehicle when Martin lost his life. Why would you think that Florida Section 776.013 would apply to this case? They were where they had every right to be, both had a "duty to retreat" and could not use lethal force unless "they reasonably believe 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".
 
Funny, you guys still going bonkers on a nonstory some 3-4 weeks old when whipped into a frenzy and used by the Obama administration for political gain. Sometime later a very similar scenario went down with nary a whimper from MSM.....LOL

The White Latino-Jew will walk.
 
Funny, you guys still going bonkers on a nonstory some 3-4 weeks old when whipped into a frenzy and used by the Obama administration for political gain. Sometime later a very similar scenario went down with nary a whimper from MSM.....LOL

The White Latino-Jew will walk.
I would love to be in the court room when Zimmerman's defense team introduces as evidence the ping log from Martin's phone.

There's also an interesting article on the American Thinker website: Trayvon Martin's Final Hour. Purple Lean "a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and Sprite, with a few skittles thrown in".
 
Section 776.012 makes a specific reference to "duty to retreat" and lays out the circumstances where you can and cannot use lethal force. They are generally used in cases where a person is in a place they have every legal right to be in. Both Zimmerman and Martin had every legal right to be where they were. So if you claim your use of lethal force in self-defense was justified, you will at least need to put forth evidence that the requirements of 776.012 were satisfied.

…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 circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Section 776.013 makes very specific references where you are justified in using lethal force with no requirement to exercise a "duty to retreat".

A. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

B. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Unless there is evidence not posted on the State website or Zimmerman's Legal Defense Team website, there is nothing to prove that Zimmerman or Martin were in their respective dwelling, residence or vehicle when Martin lost his life. Why would you think that Florida Section 776.013 would apply to this case? They were where they had every right to be, both had a "duty to retreat" and could not use lethal force unless "they reasonably believe 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".

The reason I feel that .013 applies is because they were both where they were legally allowed to be. It was not in a home which is what .012 applies to and there was no duty to retreat according to .013.

 
Somewhere along the way, we encounter those, like yourself, ( you said it.... ) who have already made up their minds, and having done so, listen to and worse spread only the bits that support the ideology they have already decided to adopt.

I didn't know we were discussing BaRack supporters, in this topic !
 
I didn't know we were discussing BaRack supporters, in this topic !

Knotbuyinit a Barrack supporter?

OMG!

He said he had already made p his mind, and is vigorously mining the news reports, errr... Leaks, to find bits that support his opinion.

His words. He said it. At least twice.

I said I'd let the citizens on the jury and the court system attempt to find the truth.

I hope they do, whatever it is

Your stereotype is AFU
 
Knotbuyinit a Barrack supporter?

OMG!

He said he had already made p his mind, and is vigorously mining the news reports, errr... Leaks, to find bits that support his opinion.

His words. He said it. At least twice.

I said I'd let the citizens on the jury and the court system attempt to find the truth.

I hope they do, whatever it is

Your stereotype is AFU
So, do you agree or disagree with my opinion?
 
Reading for comprehension....

"I said I'd let the citizens on the jury and the court system attempt to find the truth"

I do not care who "wins"...

I do hope the jury is able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and get to the truth

Said that before, too
 
Reading for comprehension....

"I said I'd let the citizens on the jury and the court system attempt to find the truth"

I do not care who "wins"...

I do hope the jury is able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and get to the truth

Said that before, too

As a general rule, I refrain for making comments about people who have an Attention Deficient Disorder, mental retardation or chronic white guilt syndrome, but in your case I’ve made an exception.

I already know what your opinion is on this case; you made it perfectly clear. You go as far as to fabricate details about Zimmerman’s character just to support your preconceived notion that this was a premeditated act of revenge based on racial prejudice and profiling.

This is your opinion, these are your words;

Now we have an angry, scared, violent, racist self styled vigilante on two different psychoactive medications (whT was that you said about impairment???) carrying a gun, patrolling the neighborhood, (was he just out enjoying the evening, or was he "looking for trouble"?) and confronting someone who was doing nothing at that point in time but walking while black.

That’s a pretty strong expression of an opinion if I’ve ever heard one.

Then you go on to accused me of
“vigorously mining the news reports, errr... Leaks, to find bits that support his opinion”
. . . then offer up your own vigorous mining of a news report to find bits that support your opinion.


Leaked details also revealed Zimmerman was taking the prescription drugs Adderall, which is prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy, and Temazepam, an insomnia medication, said Crump.

“He was on uppers and downers at the same time,” the attorney said. “These are medications that can cause side effects such as agitation, delusions and mood swings. That’s what he was on prior to the shooting. The question becomes, did those drugs have an effect on George Zimmerman the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin?”

An unnamed woman told an investigator in a police interview that she stays away from Zimmerman because he's racist and because of things he's done to her in the past, but she didn't elaborate on what happened between them. "I don't at all know who this kid was or anything else. But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He's very confrontational. It's in his blood. We'll just say that," the woman says in an audio recording.

The lead investigator called for Zimmerman's arrest in a report written March 13, a month before the actual arrest. The investigator, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle. He said Zimmerman could have identified himself to Martin, then talked to him, rather than confronting him. There is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity, Serino said.

Let me see if I have your drivel straight; you don't have an opinion but you have an opinion, you don't propagate unfounded news reports to support your opinion but you propagate unfounded news reports to support your opinion, you don't care about the outcome of the case but you care about the outcome of the case, you don't follow the case but you follow the case, your opinion, that is not an opinion, is an opinion that can't be debated and I'm not entitled to an opinion based on a complete review of the public evidence and you're entitled to an opinion based on no review of public evidence that no one can debate.

Did I miss anything?
 
Again, reading for comprehension...

Or memory issues?

I clearly stated that the above bit ("now we have...") was a bit of hyperbole, engaged in, as it frequently is, to illustrate that it is always possible to find "news" that will support your position, or opinion, or to try a case in the press. (Or, on a message board...)

No matter your opinion, or position.

That concept is not really that hard to follow, is it?

I have consistently stated that the trial that matters will take place in court, and hopefully will be conducted in a manner that allows the citizen jurors to do their duty in a fair and serious manner.

Hopefully they will find the truth.

I am not in a position, or have the knowledge of the facts and evidence to do that.

Again, That IS what I have consistently said, and it is what I mean.

You, oth, are engaged in a media driven witch hunt, as are some on the other side.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top