Is this really stand your ground law in Florida?

[Hunter007]

 

If the guy is backing  off after he pulls out the gun   how can in get away with shooting him?

 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Storm914

[Rattler]

The shooter has since been charged and is now being prosecuted.  Legally, he did not have the right to shoot, since the threat was no longer imminent.

[Hunter007]

15 hours ago, Storm914 said:

 

If the guy is backing  off after he pulls out the gun   how can  he get away with shooting him?

 

 

 

[Hunter007]

2 hours ago, Rattler said:

The shooter has since been charged and is now being prosecuted.  Legally, he did not have the right to shoot, since the threat was no longer imminent.

Yea I would think so 

[rachunter]

From what I read this guy was know for threating people with his gun.That's a good law abused by a few idiots[Zimmerman too] 

[Rattler]

This guy was wrong, but Zimmerman was not.  Zimmerman may have been a jerk that did everything wrong afterwards, but he was well within his legal right to shoot that POS when he did.  If you don't think so, you must be going on the media narrative of the "facts" as opposed to the court accepted facts.

 

[CoffeeBoy]

Zimmerman is a punk that did everything he could to provoke that kid into attacking him so he could use his weapon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Hunter007]

1 hour ago, CoffeeBoy said:

Zimmerman is a punk that did everything he could to provoke that kid into attacking him so he could use his weapon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

From the way media covers it  if what they say is true .

Yea that's my feeling about Zimmerman he got in his face  was  provoking to start trouble to set that guy up just to have a excuse to use his gun looks like .instead of just calling the cops and let them handle it . I  Think what got him off is that the   kid had a shady past so it was a tuff call for a Jurory  do you really want to convict when the guy he shot was already  getting in trouble with the law .

Same with the other guy Both of those are bad examples  of that law I think .

But if that guy had  a criminal record  he may get off , I would not be surprised. 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Storm914

[CoffeeBoy]

Same with the guy who got in the argument over the handicapped spot.

Why argue with the girl? she plainly does not care that she may be inconveniencing someone. If she did, she would have parked somewhere else.

Guaranteed if the guy wasn't carrying, he would have just parked somewhere else and just complained to his wife about illegal parking instead of confronting the woman.

Same with Zimmerman. No gun and he would have just called the cops.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[philoshop]

6 hours ago, CoffeeBoy said:

Zimmerman is a punk that did everything he could to provoke that kid into attacking him so he could use his weapon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

You might want to actually do a bit of research into that case before making accusations. Martin was a hopped-up MMA wannabe who was likely looking for a fight. Nowhere near the "innocent black child" that was portrayed by the media and the President at the time. It's entirely believable that Martin was the one looking for a fight, and the jury that acquitted Zimmerman saw it that way as well.

I researched this case and provided info to numerous people for over three months, including this guy, who got it right:

https://www.billwhittle.com/afterburner/lynching

Edited August 27, 2018 by philoshop
Wrong video

[CoffeeBoy]

I never said Martin was any kind of innocent, but it its ridiculous to say he was "likely looking for trouble".

Zimmerman was the one that was armed and following another guy. If Martin seemed like a threat, Zimmerman should have called the cops and backed off. He didn't cause he had a gun. Its kinda like beer ba!!$

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[CoffeeBoy]

Double post sorry

[Hunter007]

5 hours ago, CoffeeBoy said:

Same with the guy who got in the argument over the handicapped spot.

Why argue with the girl? she plainly does not care that she may be inconveniencing someone. If she did, she would have parked somewhere else.

Guaranteed if the guy wasn't carrying, he would have just parked somewhere else and just complained to his wife about illegal parking instead of confronting the woman.

Same with Zimmerman. No gun and he would have just called the cops.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

Yea I know what you mean it is one thing if you just carry for self defense it is another if you just carry because  it makes you feel like a tuff guy that can just open his big mouth to strangers  on the street over parking spots  or cutting in line at wallyworld  and other  Petty things .

Edited August 27, 2018 by Storm914

[Hunter007]

.

[CoffeeBoy]

Yea I know what you mean it is one thing if you just carry for self defense it is another if you just carry because  it makes you feel like a tuff guy that can just open his big mouth to strangers  on the street over parking spots  or cutting in line at wallyworld  and other  Petty things .

Some guy knocks you on your arse cause you're being belligerent to his baby mama, and you blast a hole in his chest....sorry that's not self defense. Be a man, get up, fight or back down.

That guy had a history of harassing people about parking spots also.

And Zimmerman has a checkered history with law enforcement also...before and after the Trayvon martin case.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

The recent case in Florida is an example of what happens when one dirt bag collides with another dirt bag.  One is dead and one will go to jail for a long time.  Seems to me society wins all around here.

The Zimmerman case is a different story.  It's an example of how society can circumvent the rule of law and lynch someone who was never going to be charged, and after he was charged because of strong arm tactics from the White House, as well as media propaganda, was found not guilty anyway.  Not that the anti-gun media thought that meant they should stand down and let it go.  They intentionally refused to publicize any of the facts of the case brought out in the trail, or made available to the public through other sources.  Anyone who thinks Zimmerman was guilty of anything in that case is simply refusing to accept the facts.  The question is, why do they refuse to accept the facts?  Martin is dead because everything happens for a reason.  Sometimes that reason is, you're stupid and make poor choices.

[CoffeeBoy]

What are these facts?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

Click on the link Philoshop posted above and watch the video.

[Hunter007]

5 hours ago, CoffeeBoy said:

Some guy knocks you on your arse cause you're being belligerent to his baby mama, and you blast a hole in his chest....sorry that's not self defense. Be a man, get up, fight or back down.

That guy had a history of harassing people about parking spots also.

And Zimmerman has a checkered history with law enforcement also...before and after the Trayvon martin case.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

(Your right except ) but if said guy has a criminal record and you  he put a hole  in him after he knocked him  on his ass because he feared  for  his  life and thought maybe he was going for a weapon when it 

Goes to court that is what the guy is going to say right or wrong and if it comes out that that guy  he shot had a  checkered pass don't be surprised if he gets off all I'm saying . And almost guaranteed someone like that who just knocked a guy on his ass for just   arguing at his girlfriend   almost guaranteed has a criminal record . 

[CoffeeBoy]

Click on the link Philoshop posted above and watch the video.

I did. It's all completely irrelevant propaganda.

I never said Trayvon Martin was a sweet little kid. He may well have been an angry kid with violent tendencies. He may have liked to mix his tea with cough syrup. He may have stolen things or received stolen goods at some point. Problem is, he was not doing any of that at the time of the shooting.

The relevant facts are, Zimmerman saw a suspicious character in his neighborhood. He followed the guy, called the cops and was told by the dispatcher not to follow the guy. Martin noticed he was being followed got pissed and was in the process of kicking Zimmermans ass when he was shot.

I don't doubt that Zimmerman feared for his life when he pulled the pulled the trigger. But he put himself in that situation.

If you make it obvious that you're following a person that is doing nothing wrong in that very moment....expect bad consequences.

Bottom line, Zimmerman, much like the guy in the parking lot, had a whole lot of extra courage due to the fact that they had a gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Hunter007]

57 minutes ago, CoffeeBoy said:

I did. It's all completely irrelevant propaganda.

I never said Trayvon Martin was a sweet little kid. He may well have been an angry kid with violent tendencies. He may have liked to mix his tea with cough syrup. He may have stolen things or received stolen goods at some point. Problem is, he was not doing any of that at the time of the shooting.

The relevant facts are, Zimmerman saw a suspicious character in his neighborhood. He followed the guy, called the cops and was told by the dispatcher not to follow the guy. Martin noticed he was being followed got pissed and was in the process of kicking Zimmermans ass when he was shot.

I don't doubt that Zimmerman feared for his life when he pulled the pulled the trigger. But he put himself in that situation.

If you make it obvious that you're following a person that is doing nothing wrong in that very moment....expect bad consequences.

Bottom line, Zimmerman, much like the guy in the parking lot, had a whole lot of extra courage due to the fact that they had a gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

With out a dought your right being armed will make you take more risk and in some people act like d _icks 

But legally with the way they wrote that law it says if you have a reason to fear for your life.  you can pull the trigger and you know especially a good  lawyer is going to easily turn it around and convince a jury of that when the guy he shot  took the first punch as shown on video and   if he had a checkered past .

 

Remember in criminal law ( its Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) or you have to let them walk .

If it turns out the guy was a saint different story  then he is going to jail .

That's why at first cops did not bother charging him  they no the way the law works better then anyone. 

All the guy has to do is have a good excuse for the lawyer to work with and more then likely he will get off .

Even if morally we all know  its bs to shoot someone over a parking spot . 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Storm914

[rachunter]

22 hours ago, Rattler said:

This guy was wrong, but Zimmerman was not.  Zimmerman may have been a jerk that did everything wrong afterwards, but he was well within his legal right to shoot that POS when he did.  If you don't think so, you must be going on the media narrative of the "facts" as opposed to the court accepted facts.

 

you are correct I was under the impression he was a guy with a gun looking for any reason to use it.

[CoffeeBoy]

I agree that he acted in self defense when he pulled the trigger.

But that doesn't change the fact that he provoked Martin into attacking him.

Zimmerman is/was an irresponsible gun owner.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

59 minutes ago, CoffeeBoy said:

I agree that he acted in self defense when he pulled the trigger.

But that doesn't change the fact that he provoked Martin into attacking him.

Zimmerman is/was an irresponsible gun owner.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

Having someone follow you is not a legal justification for use of force. If Martin was concerned HE should have called the police IMO. We all know why he didn't, his past history. I am not defending Zimmerman's actions and I agree with him being a scumbag but the reality is that Martin was the first one that took action that was contrary to the law unless someone knows something I don't. 

[CoffeeBoy]

Who said Martin was legally justified in attacking Zimmerman? Not me.

Zimmerman took a chance in following Martin (a chance, I believe, he would not have taken it he hadn't been armed)

Martin took a chance in jumping Zimmerman. Martin lost.

Their paths never should have crossed that night. And if Zimmerman had called the cops and backed off, as he was told to, nothing would have happened

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk