Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Witness Calls Zimmerman A Creep A$$ Cracker

JustCheNo
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Witness Rachel Jeantel " who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed " was back on the stand on Thursday, again facing a grilling from George Zimmerman"s defense attorney Don West. Alluding to yesterday"s testimony, West asked about Martin characterizing Zimmerman as a "creepy-a$$ cracker" " which Jeantel felt was not a racist remark.

West questioned Jeantel about why she felt the shooting was racial. Jeantel pointed to Martin"s description of "the person that was watching him and following him." West repeated, "Describing the person is what made you think it was racial?" Jeantel agreed.

To that point, West recalled Jeantel"s previous testimony " during which she said Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy-a$$ cracker."

"So it was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in this," West pressed. "You don"t think that"s a racial comment?"

Jeantel replied simply, "No."

West repeated the question, receiving the same answer. He then went on to press her on why she didn"t include that description in the letter to Martin"s mother. After a few minutes of back-and-forth, West contended she didn"t tell Martin"s because she knew the remark was "offensive." Jeantel said it was being "respectful."

"You don"t think calling someone a creepy-a$$ cracker is offensive?" West asked.

"No," Jeantel replied.

At that point, West continued to press the point, questioning whether she felt it would bother Martin"s mother to know the remark. Jeantel dismissed the comment as unimportant.

She also said that the judge was "retarded" twice, and said she couldn't read a statement because it was printed in cursive.

Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.
"I will continue to enforce all the laws, including illegal immigration. Nothing changes." - Sheriff Joe Arpaio (American hero)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).
My work here is, finally, done.
JustCheNo
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:48:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Oh boy, the guy who didn't even know Trayvon smashed Zimm's head into concrete in an attempt to murder him chimes in again. Your credibility is shot.
"I will continue to enforce all the laws, including illegal immigration. Nothing changes." - Sheriff Joe Arpaio (American hero)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:10:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:48:28 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Oh boy, the guy who didn't even know Trayvon smashed Zimm's head into concrete in an attempt to murder him chimes in again. Your credibility is shot.

If you learned to read, you'd know that I did know that. My question was not how bad Trayvon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, it was if he was finished or not.
My work here is, finally, done.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:50:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
was this before or after that other lady got all that attention recently for calling a black guy a nigger? stop being a retard bro
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Witness Rachel Jeantel " who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was killed " was back on the stand on Thursday, again facing a grilling from George Zimmerman"s defense attorney Don West. Alluding to yesterday"s testimony, West asked about Martin characterizing Zimmerman as a "creepy-a$$ cracker" " which Jeantel felt was not a racist remark.

West questioned Jeantel about why she felt the shooting was racial. Jeantel pointed to Martin"s description of "the person that was watching him and following him." West repeated, "Describing the person is what made you think it was racial?" Jeantel agreed.

To that point, West recalled Jeantel"s previous testimony " during which she said Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy-a$$ cracker."

"So it was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in this," West pressed. "You don"t think that"s a racial comment?"

Jeantel replied simply, "No."

West repeated the question, receiving the same answer. He then went on to press her on why she didn"t include that description in the letter to Martin"s mother. After a few minutes of back-and-forth, West contended she didn"t tell Martin"s because she knew the remark was "offensive." Jeantel said it was being "respectful."

"You don"t think calling someone a creepy-a$$ cracker is offensive?" West asked.

"No," Jeantel replied.

At that point, West continued to press the point, questioning whether she felt it would bother Martin"s mother to know the remark. Jeantel dismissed the comment as unimportant.

She also said that the judge was "retarded" twice, and said she couldn't read a statement because it was printed in cursive.

Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

Since you seem so interested in this case, would you be interested in debating me over the resolution of whether or not Zimmerman should be charged with a crime based on what we know from witness accounts and evidence presented?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 5:57:20 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
I'd like to add a fourth idiot to this conversation please

i see we're following after benchy then.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:22:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
massivedump as god why everyone is such a nutcase for me bro.... i know you got a thing with him or something?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All you have done is proven that someone is upset that her friend died. I don't see what the problem is. Are you going to accuse her of the crime of being human next? You have done nothing to prove anything about whether or not Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. In fact, the court is doing everything it can to stop Zimmerman from being convicted; it banned the testimony of two separate voice analysis experts who claimed that Martin was the one who was pleading for help, not Zimmerman. Why was their testimony banned? How much blood money did Zimmerman give the courts?

See, I can post conspiracy theories too :)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.
JustCheNo
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 7:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 6:16:56 PM, drhead wrote:
Since you seem so interested in this case, would you be interested in debating me over the resolution of whether or not Zimmerman should be charged with a crime based on what we know from witness accounts and evidence presented?

Uhhh, as far as I know he already has been, hence "the trial". So what's to debate?
"I will continue to enforce all the laws, including illegal immigration. Nothing changes." - Sheriff Joe Arpaio (American hero)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 10:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.

Even if somebody was justified in attacking me, I am fully justified in using self-defence to defend myself against him.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 11:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).

You can't react violently just because a guy is following you.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:19:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 6:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
All you have done is proven that someone is upset that her friend died. I don't see what the problem is. Are you going to accuse her of the crime of being human next? You have done nothing to prove anything about whether or not Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. In fact, the court is doing everything it can to stop Zimmerman from being convicted; it banned the testimony of two separate voice analysis experts who claimed that Martin was the one who was pleading for help, not Zimmerman. Why was their testimony banned? How much blood money did Zimmerman give the courts?

Source?

See, I can post conspiracy theories too :)
Conspiracy theories are generally not the most accurate ones.
(& this would not be your 1st, you once wrote "Kidon operates on US soil and assassinates people", based on something that you once saw on T.V.)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:20:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 10:25:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.

Even if somebody was justified in attacking me, I am fully justified in using self-defence to defend myself against him.

This is certainly true in places like Florida that have the "stand your ground" law.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:51:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 10:25:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.

Even if somebody was justified in attacking me, I am fully justified in using self-defence to defend myself against him.

No, you are not. You lose that justification. The defense itself constitutes an attack if you are the aggressor.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:51:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 11:59:30 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).

You can't react violently just because a guy is following you.

Yes, I can, especially if he's a creep who's stalking me.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 3:33:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 12:19:07 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/29/2013 6:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
All you have done is proven that someone is upset that her friend died. I don't see what the problem is. Are you going to accuse her of the crime of being human next? You have done nothing to prove anything about whether or not Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. In fact, the court is doing everything it can to stop Zimmerman from being convicted; it banned the testimony of two separate voice analysis experts who claimed that Martin was the one who was pleading for help, not Zimmerman. Why was their testimony banned? How much blood money did Zimmerman give the courts?

Source?

I, too, have heard this. Something about the voice matches are subjective.
I am guessing with the overlap, it is too difficult to ascertain whose voice is whose, thus the analysis is subjective, therefore prejudicial.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 3:37:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 11:59:30 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).

You can't react violently just because a guy is following you.

1.
To my understanding, there was a verbal exchange that went something like this:
Z: Hey, what are you doing?
T: Why are you following me?
Z: What are you doing?
and then Trayvon ran, and Zimmerman took off, on foot, after him.

I would be afraid, and probably react violently.

2.
In a more general sense, just because someone is following you, if you have reason to believe they are following you (i.e. stalking), you have every right to defend yourself, don't you? The question becomes, were you justified in being fearful?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 3:37:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 12:51:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:59:30 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).

You can't react violently just because a guy is following you.

Yes, I can, especially if he's a creep who's stalking me.

Well, stalking has a legal definition that clearly wouldn't apply here.

And any response must be proportionate. If we take Z's story at face valueit was clearly self-defense. You don't get to jump someone and start beating the crap out of them because they've been following you. You have a duty to retreat, and Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, but it doesn't have a "Advance Your Ground" law.

Now, should we take Z's story at face value? Well....I'm not seeing all the evidence. So I'm not making that call. But the claims you are making regarding the justification for force are not correct.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 3:39:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 10:25:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.

Even if somebody was justified in attacking me, I am fully justified in using self-defence to defend myself against him.

Where is the line?
Let's say I throw a punch at you in a bar because you hit on my girl. Are you justified in shooting me dead?

Let's say I throw a punch at you in a bar because you hit on my girl, and you responded by thoroughly kicking my @ss. As you get off of me and brush off the dust, can I shoot you, when the fight appears to be over?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 3:52:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 3:39:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:25:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/29/2013 6:59:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, if I had nowhere to flee and someone was stalking me, I would say that I would be justified in attacking him before he had a chance to touch me. That may not even apply to this case (I have no idea) but I think that Zimmerman is responsible regardless of whether or not Trayvon attacked.

Examining Trayvon's character in school or his use of drugs is entirely irrelevant and in fact is extraneous information that should be dismissed from the trial. Zimmerman did know who Trayvon was and had none of this external knowledge when he started stalking the teenager against the advice of the police.

Even if somebody was justified in attacking me, I am fully justified in using self-defence to defend myself against him.

Where is the line?
Let's say I throw a punch at you in a bar because you hit on my girl. Are you justified in shooting me dead?

Let's say I throw a punch at you in a bar because you hit on my girl, and you responded by thoroughly kicking my @ss. As you get off of me and brush off the dust, can I shoot you, when the fight appears to be over?

Force must always be proportionate to the level of reasonable fear, or actual harm. A single punch wouldn't warrant "shooting [you] dead", though continuing to advance or if one was legitimately in fear that this wasn't going to just be one punch might be. The second one is wrong for a host of reasons (though I'm aware you were bringing them up as questions, not trying to assert they were fine)...the aggressor can't claim self defense, and self defense doesn't apply when the fight is over. "No fair! He hit back" is not a justification for force.

I believe this is the correct statute for Florida (all emphasis obviously mine)...

"Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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."

776.013 is mostly about home invasion, though I've bolded the bit that would be relevant:

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.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 4:09:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 3:52:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My questions were asked in a manner showing my disagreement, or at least I thought it was clear. Thanks for the info, anyway.

However, I assume the bolded part was the "stand your ground" law. This doesn't seem to apply for two reasons:
1. It was never invoked by Zimmerman (it is an affirmative defense, to my knowledge)
2. Neither were not acting unlawfully, as they were both trespassing, I imagine.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 4:12:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 4:09:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/30/2013 3:52:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My questions were asked in a manner showing my disagreement, or at least I thought it was clear. Thanks for the info, anyway.

However, I assume the bolded part was the "stand your ground" law. This doesn't seem to apply for two reasons:
1. It was never invoked by Zimmerman (it is an affirmative defense, to my knowledge)

It is. I don't know enough about the specifics to know it hadn't been invoked. I believe self-defense, at least, is being invoked, though, which would be the first law.

2. Neither were not acting unlawfully, as they were both trespassing, I imagine.
I don't think either was trespassing, as they were on the street, weren't they?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 4:25:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 4:12:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 4:09:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/30/2013 3:52:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My questions were asked in a manner showing my disagreement, or at least I thought it was clear. Thanks for the info, anyway.

However, I assume the bolded part was the "stand your ground" law. This doesn't seem to apply for two reasons:
1. It was never invoked by Zimmerman (it is an affirmative defense, to my knowledge)

It is. I don't know enough about the specifics to know it hadn't been invoked. I believe self-defense, at least, is being invoked, though, which would be the first law.

As I have heard, using the "stand your ground" is like claiming a mental defect, the judge needs to allow it. So, there is a special session for court to hear the arguments for it, to decide if it applies and will be allowed. This special hearing was waived by Zimmerman, and this is just a straight self-defense defense.

2. Neither were not acting unlawfully, as they were both trespassing, I imagine.
I don't think either was trespassing, as they were on the street, weren't they?

It's hard to know exactly what happened, as so many people at the time were reporting different things. But, I remember hearing of a chase through yards. Therefore, they were both trespassing. I think the fight ended at the street (well, the curb/sidewalk of a yard), but maybe they ran down the street, and not through yards as I imagine the chase, but I thought I heard Zimmerman lost Trayvon, which sounds like they were zig-zagging through yards to me.
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:45:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 3:37:57 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 12:51:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:59:30 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:36:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:09:15 PM, JustCheNo wrote:
Rachel Jeantel offers a glimpse of who the REAL Trayvon Martin was and the hoodrats he chose to surround himself with.

So?
Even if Trayvon was a Hitler-loving Nazi double agent for the Black Panthers, what does it matter given the question at hand: was Zimmerman justified in shooting Trayvon?

Any racist motivations Trayvon may have had ("why is this honky following me? must be because I'm black") it is dwarfed by the fact that anyone may react violently while being followed for no apparent reason by someone else, let alone, just some average guy (i.e. not a cop or security officer).

You can't react violently just because a guy is following you.

Yes, I can, especially if he's a creep who's stalking me.

Well, stalking has a legal definition that clearly wouldn't apply here.

And any response must be proportionate. If we take Z's story at face valueit was clearly self-defense. You don't get to jump someone and start beating the crap out of them because they've been following you. You have a duty to retreat, and Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, but it doesn't have a "Advance Your Ground" law.

Now, should we take Z's story at face value? Well....I'm not seeing all the evidence. So I'm not making that call. But the claims you are making regarding the justification for force are not correct.

That's not true at all. Zimmerman could have been a serial killer. If self-defense applies when I see a legitimate threat to myself, it's pretty clear that someone stalking me and chasing me after I've seen him constitutes such a threat. Trayvon was very clearly frightened. I am more inclined to believe that Zimmerman started the fight given that Trayvon fled, but even if we believe Zimmerman's story, Trayvon's actions were justified.