So, several people here, as well as the authors of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, have indicated that the act of Zimmerman “following” Martin constitutes Zimmerman’s provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman, thus disqualifying Zimmerman as acting in self-defense under Florida law. This is despite the fact that in at least two publicized cases dismissed under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the killers pursued their victims prior to killing. (1. news.findlaw.com/apnews/54dce113ea424c8d... 2. www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/s... )
The act of provoking another person to engage in an altercation would have to be a particularly overt and egregious act, would it not? I have never been provoked into using force against another person, and I have never provoked anyone to use force against me. It isn’t a commonplace kind of act.
In fact, the act of provoking another person to use force against oneself would itself be an illegal act, regardless of what might happen afterward. Right?
But no one seems to know of any evidence that Zimmerman actually performed such an act that constitutes a provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman. Right?
My problem with the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law is that it allows a judge, not a jury to dismiss charges against Greyston Garcia, and Anthony Gonzalez both of whom pursued and killed people, but a 31-year-old woman, Marissa Alexander, gets a 20 year prison sentence for firing a warning shot to keep her abusive husband from attacking her. The judge said the "Stand Your Ground" law didn't apply because she could have run out of the house. Since when does the phrase stand your ground mean run away, and why were Garcia and Gonzalez not required to run away instead of killing their adversaries?Link
"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
ONE of the Witnesses reports that "The Night Stalker" was calm and casual after the Shooting, saying, "I shot a guy ... "
People in a state of shock, or initial disbelief after a stressfull or traumatic event, can often be "calm and casual."
There's physical evidence that he took quite a beating.
And yes, the nature of the blows being leveled against him (especially having his head being slammed into the pavement) very well could have been fatal.
But, as I said, again, people in a state of shock/being stunned can seem very matter-of-fact, or "casual."
IOW, The Florida "Shoot-Anybody-Who-Scares-You" Law is on ONE Hand patently "Un-Constitutionally VAGUE," and on the OTHER Hand, Constitutes a Virtual Hunting License for SOME Guys ...
ONE of the Witnesses reports that "The Night Stalker" was calm and casual after the Shooting, saying, "I shot a guy ... "
People in a state of shock, or initial disbelief after a stressfull or traumatic event, can often be "calm and casual."
**There's physical evidence that he took quite a beating.
***And yes, the nature of the blows being leveled against him (especially having his head being slammed into the pavement) very well could have been fatal.
But, as I said, again, ****people in a state of shock/being stunned can seem very matter-of-fact, or "casual."
I know what you asked, and I don't care. I lost interest when you responded with an ad hominem.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
The most OBVIOUS "Piece" of "Evidence" is The Dead Body of Trayvon Martin ... with a HOLE in it, as generously provided by George "Night Stalker" Zimmerman, with his 9mm Semi-Automatic Pistol ...
So, several people here, as well as the authors of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, have indicated that the act of Zimmerman “following” Martin constitutes Zimmerman’s provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman, thus disqualifying Zimmerman as acting in self-defense under Florida law. This is despite the fact that in at least two publicized cases dismissed under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the killers pursued their victims prior to killing. (1. news.findlaw.com/apnews/54dce113ea424c8d... 2. www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/s... )
The act of provoking another person to engage in an altercation would have to be a particularly overt and egregious act, would it not? I have never been provoked into using force against another person, and I have never provoked anyone to use force against me. It isn’t a commonplace kind of act.
In fact, the act of provoking another person to use force against oneself would itself be an illegal act, regardless of what might happen afterward. Right?
But no one seems to know of any evidence that Zimmerman actually performed such an act that constitutes a provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman. Right?
My problem with the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law is that it allows a judge, not a jury to dismiss charges against Greyston Garcia, and Anthony Gonzalez both of whom pursued and killed people, but a 31-year-old woman, Marissa Alexander, gets a 20 year prison sentence for firing a warning shot to keep her abusive husband from attacking her. The judge said the "Stand Your Ground" law didn't apply because she could have run out of the house. Since when does the phrase stand your ground mean run away, and why were Garcia and Gonzalez not required to run away instead of killing their adversaries?Link
Ito is not the only incompetent judge to sit on the bench. My daughters college roommate would be alive if some stupid liberal judge didn't set her killer free a week before the murder.