jjorsett: adiabat: maybe he thought he was going to be interviewed by a real journalist, and then found out it was O'Donnell.

What, there's something unjournalistic about screaming "LIAR! LIAR!" at your guests?

[i40.tinypic.com image 275x183]

LOL you would have more credibility in your flimsy argument if you weren't trying to white knight Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

/[itsstillrealtomedammit.jpg]

The whole thing is just god damn disturbing. Someone got killed, and the police just took the killer's words for it, filed the unarmed corpse under John Doe, and patted themselves for job well done? That's farked up no matter how you look at it.

Hector Remarkable: Everyone loves a good Monty Python joke. Except girls perhaps, or others who exist outside the basement, whose hands do not share the orange cheesy glow of our own.



/nee

Ahem.

I love MP.
Though I don't hang out in the basement.
And it's been years since I've eaten Cheetos.

My word, could Zimmerman and his sleazy lawyer be gasp lying?

whizbangthedirtfarmer: aug3: well during my lunch drive I was listening to Rush, he seems very concerned that there are "Obama 2012" Hoodies for sale, because according to Rush, the reason they are called "Hoodies" is because hoodlums wear them.

This is what conservative actually believe.

[moonbattery.com image 500x500]

A guy just mentioned this on NPR's Talk of the Nation and got roundly smacked down. I figured he'd gotten that talking point from somewhere.

Did they tell him that hoodie is short for hooded sweatshirt?

Geraldo should be shot for wearing those stoner glasses. farking hippie.

DoctorRock: Hey guys! Remember us?

[images.usatoday.com image 472x273]

my point is that the media completely loses their shiat over cases like this. I was not there. You were not there. we dont know everything yet. SO everyone get off their farking high horse and just chillax for a little bit.

So you're saying that Martin is only faking being dead in order to get attention? Interesting tactic, let's see how it works for him...

From Freeperville:

"TRAYVON HAS INDICTED HIMSELF WITH HIS TWEETS. CASE CLOSED: THIS WAS MOST LIKELY A VIOLENT, RACIST, MISOGYNISTIC MALE (not a "child" as the Institutional Left Media wants you to believe)"

I don't get what he was "INDICTED" with... He was shot and killed. I wasn't aware he was on trial for being a street talking black kid.

DoctorRock: Hey guys! Remember us?

[images.usatoday.com image 472x273]

my point is that the media completely loses their shiat over cases like this. I was not there. You were not there. we dont know everything yet. SO everyone get off their farking high horse and just chillax for a little bit.

The only reason the nation is paying any attention to this case is because people opted to take the road less chillaxed and decry injustice. Chillaxation can be another word for apathy.

poursoul: I don't get what he was "INDICTED" with... He was shot and killed. I wasn't aware he was on trial for being a street talking black kid.

Don't try to apply any sort of logic or sense to freeper posts. That's how you get terminal brain cancer.

actualhuman: unchellmatt: I love the people now defending the shooting by saying that it was "justified" and how bad this kid was.

Listen, it doesn't matter if the kid had, at any point, done ANYTHING. He was not breaking any law, and he wasn't doing anything other than walking down the street.

Now, I've been wearing hoodies for over 20+ years at this point. I used to smoke a lot of weed, too. That wouldn't excuse someone assaulting me and shooting me. If someone charges you, accosts you, assaults you, and you defend yourself then YOU get shot, and the person who accosted you and assaulted you doesn't face ANY charges? There's something wrong with that picture.

That's my issue with this. This kid threw Zimmerman a beating, and you know what? Sounds like the coont had it coming. But is SHOOTING the kid justified?

No.

It really says a lot about a culture when such behavior as "taking a walk" has become suspicious activity.



It all depends on where, when and whatever. If someone wearing a hoodie is meandering around my suburban neighborhood at 1 AM, stopping occasionally and looking around, not walking his dog, my first thought is not that this is some incurable romantic with insomnia or a guy whose BMW broke down and is looking for a Starbucks.

Am I profiling? I guess so. Sorry.

Flaming Yawn: actualhuman: unchellmatt: I love the people now defending the shooting by saying that it was "justified" and how bad this kid was.

Listen, it doesn't matter if the kid had, at any point, done ANYTHING. He was not breaking any law, and he wasn't doing anything other than walking down the street.

Now, I've been wearing hoodies for over 20+ years at this point. I used to smoke a lot of weed, too. That wouldn't excuse someone assaulting me and shooting me. If someone charges you, accosts you, assaults you, and you defend yourself then YOU get shot, and the person who accosted you and assaulted you doesn't face ANY charges? There's something wrong with that picture.

That's my issue with this. This kid threw Zimmerman a beating, and you know what? Sounds like the coont had it coming. But is SHOOTING the kid justified?

No.

It really says a lot about a culture when such behavior as "taking a walk" has become suspicious activity.



It all depends on where, when and whatever. If someone wearing a hoodie is meandering around my suburban neighborhood at 1 AM, stopping occasionally and looking around, not walking his dog, my first thought is not that this is some incurable romantic with insomnia or a guy whose BMW broke down and is looking for a Starbucks.

Am I profiling? I guess so. Sorry.

But let me ask you though. Would you run after the dude after having called the police, and get yourself into whatever the hell situation it is that make you raise the gun at someone wearing the hoodie.

DoctorRock: Hey guys! Remember us?

[images.usatoday.com image 472x273]

my point is that the media completely loses their shiat over cases like this. I was not there. You were not there. we dont know everything yet. SO everyone get off their farking high horse and just chillax for a little bit.

I agree that, if you had to go with what is in the media, Zimmerman would need to be hung for at least murder 2. But what's disturbing is this whole "justice for Trayvon" movement which is looking more and more like a lynch mob.

Ideally, a transparent, honest investigation should lead to charges (or not) but I don't like the idea of several hundred thousand "Likes" on someone's facebook page, and a bunch of fiery speeches by the likes of Al Sharpton being enough to convict the guy.

Incidentally, in a little town east of San Diego, a 32-year old immigrant Iraqi mother of 5 was beaten to death in her house, and a note left "Go back to your own country." Should we expect to see Trayvon-level outrage and protest in her case as well?

(At utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/27/memorial-service-today-for-slain-iraqi -woman/)

DoctorRock: Hey guys! Remember us?

[images.usatoday.com image 472x273]

my point is that the media completely loses their shiat over cases like this. I was not there. You were not there. we dont know everything yet. SO everyone get off their farking high horse and just chillax for a little bit.

While I ageree that the media can reflect the worst of mob mentality, the Duke Lacrosse team benefited from a complete and competent investigation. Zimmerman will walk away without a hearing because one was never done.

DoctorRock: AdmirableSnackbar: So you're saying that Martin is only faking being dead in order to get attention? Interesting tactic, let's see how it works for him...

im saying i dont know what the hell happened. neither do you. neither does anyone else. Im saying that the media always farks up any race related story. Ever give a cat a shiatton of fresh catnip? the media reacts the same way to race stories. They lose their tiny little minds. Ive seen enough of this garbage from them to hold judgement for a while. They know how to get you to keep watching. My emotions are assholes and i dont trust em.......need more info. goddamnit....i have a point but percocet is preventing me from making it.

I know what happened. The guy with the gun shot the guy without the gun. After he was stalking him. After the police told him not to.

But to be fair, he was wearing a hoodie.

DoctorRock: AdmirableSnackbar: So you're saying that Martin is only faking being dead in order to get attention? Interesting tactic, let's see how it works for him...

im saying i dont know what the hell happened. neither do you. neither does anyone else. Im saying that the media always farks up any race related story. Ever give a cat a shiatton of fresh catnip? the media reacts the same way to race stories. They lose their tiny little minds. Ive seen enough of this garbage from them to hold judgement for a while. They know how to get you to keep watching. My emotions are assholes and i dont trust em.......need more info. goddamnit....i have a point but percocet is preventing me from making it.

You don't seem to realize that the outrage isn't about the killing of Trayvon Martin but the lack of an investigation by the Sanford police. Everyone (well, those of us who are neither racist or sociopathic) sees his death as a tragedy, but without the outrage that spread to the media there wouldn't have been a second look at the investigation. The Feds certainly wouldn't be involved, which is really what is driving the case at this point because the Sanford PD has to cover its ass.

Flaming Yawn: Ideally, a transparent, honest investigation should lead to charges (or not) but I don't like the idea of several hundred thousand "Likes" on someone's facebook page, and a bunch of fiery speeches by the likes of Al Sharpton being enough to convict the guy.

Incidentally, in a little town east of San Diego, a 32-year old immigrant Iraqi mother of 5 was beaten to death in her house, and a note left "Go back to your own country." Should we expect to see Trayvon-level outrage and protest in her case as well?

Regardless, I'd say this punches a BIIIIIIIG hole in the tired conservative talking point, "It's the 21st century, there's a half-black president, there's clearly no racism in the country any more."

Millennium: Part of me feels sorry for the guy. Odious as Zimmerman's actions were, he does have the right to an attorney, which means someone has to get called to defend the indefensible.

Only part of me feels sorry for him, though. I've seen too many of them figure out ways to worm around the law (or at least convince the juries that they've done so) just enough to let some of the most clearly guilty defendants in recent memory walk free. I have a disturbing hunch that this guy will manage to do it too.

Oh? Just whom do you mean?

Flaming Yawn: DoctorRock: Hey guys! Remember us?

[images.usatoday.com image 472x273]

my point is that the media completely loses their shiat over cases like this. I was not there. You were not there. we dont know everything yet. SO everyone get off their farking high horse and just chillax for a little bit.

I agree that, if you had to go with what is in the media, Zimmerman would need to a target be hung for at least murder 2. But what's disturbing is this whole "justice for Trayvon" movement which is looking more and more like a lynch mob.

Ideally, a transparent, honest investigation should lead to charges (or not) but I don't like the idea of several hundred thousand "Likes" on someone's facebook page, and a bunch of fiery speeches by the likes of Al Sharpton being enough to convict the guy.

Incidentally, in a little town east of San Diego, a 32-year old immigrant Iraqi mother of 5 was beaten to death in her house, and a note left "Go back to your own country." Should we expect to see Trayvon-level outrage and protest in her case as well?

(At utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/27/memorial-service-today-for-slain-iraqi -woman/)

The Treyvon Martin case is an object lesson in the special dangers that young black men face in this nation. His death illustrates the special concerns faced by the parents of black sons for populations that may not be aware of things like "the black code" and other examples of methods used to mitigate (new window) these dangers

It's a conversation that can get rowdy, but it's necessary.

The beating death is indeed horrific, but no one is blaming the victim for the crime that took her life and I bet the perpetrator(s) will be arrested once they are found.

trivial use of my dark powers: Hector Remarkable: Everyone loves a good Monty Python joke. Except girls perhaps, or others who exist outside the basement, whose hands do not share the orange cheesy glow of our own.

/nee

Ahem.

I love MP.
Though I don't hang out in the basement.
And it's been years since I've eaten Cheetos.


Oh sure, girls on the Internet who like Monty Python. Sure, I believe you. Far be it from me to perpetuate a tired old meme like No Girls on the Internet.

(what trivial use of my dark powers may look like)

sammyk: jjorsett: sammyk: I don't give a shiat if the kid was walking down the street with a pound of smack tucked under his hoody. Zimmerman is not law enforcement! As he is not law enforcement he had no authority to do anything to Trayvon besides calling the cops on him. Neighborhood watch does not give you the right so much as lay a pinky finger on another human being. End of of farking discussion.

How about we base our conclusions on evidence, instead of raw emotion? The FBI is now involved and we should let them uncover what actually happened before we hang George Zimmerman or anyone else. I know we haven't got all the facts by a long shot.

The entire issue is he hasn't even been arrested or charged. The outrage is that he is not facing a fair trial.

But the evidence we have is pretty clear. Zimmerman got out of his car with his gun with the intention of confronting Martin. When he got back to his car Martin had been shot dead with Zimmermans' gun. Now when Zimmerman got out of his car with his gun against the advice of 911 he gave up any claims to self defense. If you cannot understand that you are being intentionally obtuse. The man needs to be on trial. It's nice the FBI stepped in and all but this should be a local law enforcement issue and they have failed miserably.

I am not the wannabe vigilante. Zimmerman is

So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

This case is just a blatant reminder of why I'm never putting my fate in the hands of a jury. There are nuanced and complicated aspects of criminal law involved here. In fact, it almost reads like part of a bar exam question. Half the public cannot get past their raw emotion long enough to think straight, the other half thinks they know enough law from what they learned on Law and Order to pass judgment on a very limited set of facts.

jjorsett: adiabat: maybe he thought he was going to be interviewed by a real journalist, and then found out it was O'Donnell.

What, there's something unjournalistic about screaming "LIAR! LIAR!" at your guests?

[i40.tinypic.com image 275x183]

no actually that's part of being a journalist. telling the truth even if it is uncomfortable. what passes for journalism nowadays is people letting others lie and get away with it.
O'Donnell wasn't going to let him spew his lies and then nod and move on.

Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

no. but if you have a gun and the other person is unarmed and you pursue them after being told by the cops not to and confront them resulting in a fight and you think a punch in the nose warrants killing them then you might have a problem.

You can't claim self defense just because you are losing the fight you started.

Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

Halli: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

776.041Use 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:
(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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Either he doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely), or you read somewhere that he said such a thing (likely). In the case of the latter, I'd suggest they might have told you other untruths...you may wish to reconsider what you think you know about the case.

Legal Question
What if Jerry Sandusky chases down a kid in his gated neighborhood, The kid fights back, Sandusky feeling "threatened" shoots and kills the kid. And when the police arrive Sandusky claims self-defense. Would this be legal under FLA Law?

Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

776.041Use 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:
(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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Either he doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely), or you read somewhere that he said such a thing (likely). In the case of the latter, I'd suggest they might have told you other untruths...you may w ...

I don't really see how any of those apply to Zimmerman's situation.

Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

776.041Use 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:
(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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Either he doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely), or you read somewhere that he said such a thing (likely). In the case of the latter, I'd suggest they might have told you other untruths...you may w ...

someone probably posted this already, but just in case, here, he'll tell you himself/a> (new window)

Halli: I don't really see how any of those apply to Zimmerman's situation.

There's a lot you don't see...that's the point.

Cataholic: Halli: I don't really see how any of those apply to Zimmerman's situation.

There's a lot you don't see...that's the point.

Ohh the point that only you get it would seem.

ShawnDoc: Hobodeluxe: you know what else wasn't relevant? the police leaking the info about Trayvon and the reason he was suspended from school. but they did it anyway. I guess his drug test came up clean and that was all they had to smear him with.

And even if it hadn't come up clean, who gives a shiat about a little weed? Its not like smoking weed turns you into some sort of super human rape and murder machine. Although it might explain why he thought it was a good idea to go walking in the rain to purchase some skittles.

He's never gonna be happy again.

brainiac-dumdum: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

776.041Use 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:
(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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Either he doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely), or you read somewhere that he said such a thing (likely). In the case of the latter, I'd suggest they might have told you other untruths. ...

He was referring to the 2005 "stand your ground" which is here:

http://laws.flrules.org/2005/27 (pdf)

It had no effect on 776.12 (generic self defense) or 776.041 (which I cited above and deals with aggressors being able to use the defense). It really would only have come into play had this been a home invasion/carjacking situation. Honestly, I'm not sure why it's even being brought up under this case.

Cataholic: brainiac-dumdum: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: Halli: Cataholic: So, by getting out of a car with a gun (and without regard to any other circumstance), one automatically forfeits any claim of justification or self defense from then on?

When you start an altercation you can't exactly shoot people in self defense.

Thank you for proving my point. In Florida, provoking a confrontation does not revoke your ability to use self-defense. So long as the force you are defending against is so great, you reasonably believe you are in danger of great bodily harm, it merely imposes an obligation of making every reasonable attempt to escape the fight. It would also still apply if the "initial aggressor" withdrew from the fight and indicated he no longer wished to fight. Like I said, it's a lot more complicated than many of you think.

That's odd because the guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

776.041Use 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:
(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.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Either he doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely), or you read somewhere that he said such a thing (likely). In the case of the latter, I'd suggest they might have told yo ...

The interesting thing is that, according to the sponsor of the bill, if Treyvon Martin was being stalked by an armed Zimmerman, then Treyvon Martin is the person entitled to the self defense explanation.

brainiac-dumdum: The interesting thing is that, according to the sponsor of the bill, if Treyvon Martin was being stalked by an armed Zimmerman, then Treyvon Martin is the person entitled to the self defense explanation.

If he were brandishing the weapon, then yes. "Stalked" doesn't really mean anything here. All parties were legally entitled to be where they were.

Cataholic: brainiac-dumdum: The interesting thing is that, according to the sponsor of the bill, if Treyvon Martin was being stalked by an armed Zimmerman, then Treyvon Martin is the person entitled to the self defense explanation.

If he were brandishing the weapon, then yes. "Stalked" doesn't really mean anything here. All parties were legally entitled to be where they were.

So, a person is legally entitled to follow someone else in a menacng fashion? Remember, Treyvon Martin was reported (new window) to have been on the phone with his girlfriend shortly before his death, and was concerned about his being followed

brainiac-dumdum: Cataholic: brainiac-dumdum: The interesting thing is that, according to the sponsor of the bill, if Treyvon Martin was being stalked by an armed Zimmerman, then Treyvon Martin is the person entitled to the self defense explanation.

If he were brandishing the weapon, then yes. "Stalked" doesn't really mean anything here. All parties were legally entitled to be where they were.

So, a person is legally entitled to follow someone else in a menacng fashion? Remember, Treyvon Martin was reported (new window) to have been on the phone with his girlfriend shortly before his death, and was concerned about his being followed

Menacing? Florida has no such animal, but it would have to involve a visible threat of bodily violence to be considered "menacing." You are not legally entitled to assume someone is going to harm you just because they are following you.

Cataholic: brainiac-dumdum: Cataholic: brainiac-dumdum: The interesting thing is that, according to the sponsor of the bill, if Treyvon Martin was being stalked by an armed Zimmerman, then Treyvon Martin is the person entitled to the self defense explanation.

If he were brandishing the weapon, then yes. "Stalked" doesn't really mean anything here. All parties were legally entitled to be where they were.

So, a person is legally entitled to follow someone else in a menacng fashion? Remember, Treyvon Martin was reported (new window) to have been on the phone with his girlfriend shortly before his death, and was concerned about his being followed

Menacing? Florida has no such animal, but it would have to involve a visible threat of bodily violence to be considered "menacing." You are not legally entitled to assume someone is going to harm you just because they are following you.

closely following a minor at night wouldn't be considered menacing?

The sponsor of the stand your ground bill would seem to disagree with you. He doesn't mention Treyvon Martin being followed, but he seems to be under the impression that it was Martin who had the right to defend himself.

Also, according to the girlfriend, trayvon martin asked zimmerman why he was being followed, he didn't just spaz out and attack him.