Zimmerman Trial (Weekend Edition) continued

DG, you can't have it both ways. If NWs aren't supposed to have confrontations with suspects then what the heck was GZ doing, and if they are allowed then they had better identify themselves. Whichever is the case, GZ obviously didn't follow the rules.

 

Who said anything about waving it, he had it did he not. How many teenagers have you chased in your neighborhood at night while you were packing? Sorry, I mean how many black teenagers have you chased around the neighborhood at night?

- - - Updated - - -

Its not good for me, I am not the one on trial.

 

That's a violation of the law. It's called assault. Once the force escalates beyond a reasonable defense (just enough for to make the other person stop hitting you), it becomes assault. If the forensics show Martin was on top of Zimmerman on the ground hitting him and preventing any possible retreat, Z will be acquitted.

 

He followed the orders his ear crickets gave him.

 

That matters, how?

 

Why are you making this about me and not the trial? Zimmerman having a loaded gun is a moot point if Martin had no clue he was armed. And no point did Dee Dee say Martin mentioned anyone following him with a gun.

 

The basis of American justice is innocent until proven guilty.

Clearly blacks and white libs are violating that standard.

No lefty posting on this board is open minded enough to render a fair verdict.

And I think the libs posting here are typical of libs everywhere.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Once Martin became aware of the gun, he had no obligation to let the boy bumper escape before disarming him. That would get him killed. Think some time. SYG allows you to smash the boy bumper into such a state that he is no longer a threat. As long as he had the gun, he was a threat. Fat boy had his chance when Martin asked why the creepy azz cracka was following him.

 

Did they take his jacket out for dry cleaning? How could you do that much bleeding and slide in the grass for 40' and your jacket be that clean. Must be Gortex.

 

And the consequences of violating NW guidelines are what again?

- - - Updated - - -

Still hung up on the blood you claim to be unable to see but has been proved to be there.

Sad.

 

Because by not following the rules, he made himself look like just another boy bumper. Boy bumpers are a threat to one's safety and life. Under 776.013(3), Martin was authorized to use an appropriate level of force to assure that Z ceased to be a threat.

Once he became aware of the gun, he was entitled to remove it, even to smoke Z if he tried to get it back.

Z was entitled to grovel and ask for mercy and warn Martin that the cops were coming.

 

Not if its self defense.

So who determines whether its enough or not?

How would the forensics show that?

 

When did Martin become aware of the gun? Proof please! Also Zimmerman had no legal obligation to allow Martin to disarm him so Martin got shot for trying to do so. It works both ways AND it makes it a clean shoot, sorry.

 

It may be the basis, but history shows us that turns out to be false when certain people are on trial.

Kind of like white conservatives have done since this country was founded.

Neither is any racist conservatives.

Touche' just as the racist conservatives who post here are.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep it is sad isn't it. Someone claims to be brutally beaten like that and you need a microscope to find a drop of blood on their jacket.

 

Boy bumpers?

Is that black slang for homosexuals?

 

Horse hockey. Z had a chance to tell Martin that he was NW and not a boy bumper. He lost his right to self-defense right there. Once Martin was aware of the gun, only a sick SOB with an IQ of 70 or less expects him to let the boy bumper go. Obviously, this dangerous felon needed to be disarmed.

 

There will be another two or three weeks of trial.. Don't jump the gun.

 

Zimmerman knew he was armed when he took out after him that is the point, of course Trayvon didn't know whether this coward was armed or not that is why he ran.

No (*)(*)(*)(*), unless Trayvon had xray vision how would he know that.

Now lets say Trayvon would have had a gun would he have been justified in putting a bullet in Zimmerman if he felt threatened by someone chasing him in the night.

 

This is the fun part. We've all tried to reason with them and show them the evidence and the law, but they are emotional reasoners and we might as will be speaking Chinese.

If a black teen assaulted a white teen, but the white mounted the black teen and grounded and pounded him, the lynch mobbers would be screaming for him to stop before he killed the black teen.

But, with a white being beaten as in this case, they could care less. You can't reason with people like that.

 

Why does it have to be black slang? Whites don't have any slang?

 

No. It is pretty much mainstream for pervs who like boys. It can include pedophile rapists or right wingers who take illegally obtained puffy pills to some country where there are boy brothels, like the Dominican Republic.

 

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(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.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Where does it say that? Once Martin attempted to disarm Zimmerman, Z had every right to shoot him.

 

Yea you (*)(*)(*)(*)house Lawyers have really educated us on the law. Just for the record how many of you are lawyers or detectives again?

Really give us a few examples of where this has happened, where someone black has murdered someone white and black folks ahve come out and defended that murder.

Give us a few examples of this, should be fun when you come back with it. As with this case I can give you a few examples though where an innocent black man has been murdered even if it was by the cops and you are one of the main ones who will try and justify that murder.

 

Nobody with an IQ over 70 expects anyone to get off of a creepy dude who was following them for no reason and then turned out to have a gun.

Martin had a right to defend himself from the boy bumper. The failed cop had the option to turn around and run. Murder 2, that simple.

 

What's your point??? He broke NW rules once he armed himself and attempted to act in that capacity instead of going to Target.