LOL ...

Why post something if you don't want others to respond ... ???  Hello ... ???

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Marcion wrote:

Teilhard

Why respond to my posts?

Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:22PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

mindis1:  Several of the defendants in the dismissed cases first chased the people they eventually killed.

Did they chase BEFORE there was a "threat"?  Walking home with a snack is NOT a "threat".

Notice in 776.012(1) that in order to justify the use of deadly force a person only needs to “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”. Justifiable homicide under this law does not require that no pursuit occur prior to when the person “reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] necessary . . .”

See: 14th Amendment and subsequent Legislation and SCOTUS Decisions ...

No ... "Racial-ist Bias" in Matters of "Life" and "Liberty" IS Illegal in The USA, even though it IS indeed shockingly common, as, apparently, in Florida ... and EVEN  THOUGH  some Citizens think it's a GOOD Idea ... It's W-R-O-N-G ...

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:04PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 5:16PM, teilhard wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:06PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:52PM, teilhard wrote:

*** You're kidding, right ... ???  The Suggestion seems to be that "The Night Stalker" had some Kind of god-like Knowledge of WHO was breaking-in in the Neighborhood ... ???  Furthermore, all of a sudden, in America,  routine "Racial Profiling" is OKAY ... ???  What ... ???

And ... ummmm ... SHOOTING an unarmed Kid just for being "Black" and wearing a "Hoodie" is ... REASONABLE ... ???

No, I was not kidding about what I said. There is no law that forbids any “neighborhood watch volunteer” from racial (or any other kind of) profiling. Whether or not Zimmerman did decide to stop and question Martin due to racial profiling is inconsequential to any legal argument that he did anything unlawful. The defense does not need to rebut any accusation by the prosecutor that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. The fact that the prosecutor decided to put this accusation into the probable cause affidavit only illustrates the lack of a case the prosecutor has.

The prosecutor needs to prove that Zimmerman did not “reasonably believe” that such force as he used was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself. There is nothing in the probable cause affidavit to suggest that Zimmerman did not have such a “reasonable belief”. The prosecutor can accuse Zimmerman of racial profiling all day long; it will never amount to more than an empty accusation, and it will never help to prove her second-degree murder charge.

And, BTW, one obviously does not need any “god-like knowledge” in order to know the race or gender of people who have been reported or arrested for neighborhood break-ins. That Zimmerman’s decision to stop and question Martin might have been a case of racial “profiling” (which is probably true) is, again, inconsequential to any legal argument for second-degree murder.

Except ...

Under The U. S. Constitution, which is The Supreme Law of The Land (even in a State like Florida ... !!!), "Racial Bias" in Matters of Life and Liberty IS a Crime, no Matter who perpetrates it ... 

I suggest that you look at the Constitution some time, if you ever get a chance between posting your opinions on Beliefnet. I take it that you cannot quote whatever “Racial Bias” provision you believe is in the Constitution, and use it to articulate an argument that Zimmerman violated Martin’s Constitutional rights. Right?

I DO agree that Racial-ist Profiling is shockingly COMMON in The USA, but that Fact DOESN'T mean it is "okay" …

I pointed out more than once in my above post that whether or not Zimmerman chose to stop and question Martin on the basis of racial (or any other kind of) “profiling” is inconsequential to any legal argument that he is guilty of what he is charged with. If you have any information or evidence to the contrary, then present it. It would certainly be an injustice to “convict” Zimmerman of something that you merely consider not “okay” but that is not illegal. He must be convicted of violating a law. Right?

I gave you the law that sets out what is justifiable homicide under Florida’s “stand your ground” law. What do you claim Zimmerman did contrary to this law? You never answered that question.  

Plus ... There has so far been NO Factual Report released by or to ANYBODY (as far as I'm aware) indicating that The "Night Stalker's" Neighborhood had been Burglarized or otherwise bothered by "Black" Kids (wearing "Hoodies" or not) ... Has there ... ??? ...

The point seems to have gone over your head. I’ll say it again: The defense need not rebut any accusation that Zimmerman decided to stop and question Martin due to racial (or any other kind of) “profiling”. Whether or not Zimmerman “profiled” Martin using any criterion such as race or gender is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is guilty of second degree murder.

So it begins:

www.wtop.com/?nid=209&sid=2822392

Let's just hope we don't end up with another Lance Ito who was more concerned about how he was portrayed on Jay Leno than acting as a judge.

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:13PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:08PM, mindis1 wrote:

A number of people here seem to think that Zimmerman should be convicted on second degree murder charges. My question is: given the following law, which is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, what did Zimmerman do wrong?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person. -- A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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.

www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...

Several comments on this and other threads suggest that Zimmerman is guilty because he pursued Martin. But, as you will notice, this law does not in any way forbid someone from pursuing the person he eventually kills. Several of the defendants in the dismissed cases first chased the people they eventually killed.

So no one else here is going to bite?  Am I hearing this correctly?

Did everyone decide that, given the law, Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted for second degree murder?

I don't think a lot of people thought it was second degree murder to begin with.  Manslaughter seems more appropriate.  Obviously, this situation showcases the glaring flaws in the Stand Your Ground law.  Beyond that, it sounds like the burden of proof that he was acting in self defense should still fall on Zimmerman.  

If this law allows someone to pursue and then kill, and all they have to do is cry self-defense, then the law is essentially making it perfectly legal to murder anyone you don't like...so long as you're a decent liar and lucky enough for there not to be any witnesses around.