Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kestrel]

I like how you interpret a guy who once pushed an undercover alcohol agent when he was young and drunk and got in a fight with is exfiance has "a history of anger management problems."

A court sent Zimmerman to anger management classes. I consider that a good indication he had anger management problems.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

A court sent Zimmerman to anger management classes. I consider that a good indication he had anger management problems.

Do you have anything to back that up ?

If you are refering to 2005, I read that was an alcohol education program - nothing to do with anger management.

ETA:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...curity-Job-Due-To-Temper-and-Being-Liability-
In 2005, the same year that Zimmerman lost his security guard job, he was also arrested for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both third-degree felonies. Those charges were dropped after he agreed to enter an alcohol education program.

As for the being fired:
An unnamed former co-worker told the New York Daily News that George Zimmerman was paid under-the-table for providing security for illegal house parties between 2001 and 2005, but was let go because his anger issues “became a liability.”

That's not very compelling evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

...defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Sub(1) expands - but is still predicated on - the main body of the statute.

Did you see the part that said "except deadly force"? If you are going to answer questions about the law, the least you could do would be to quote the proper sections of the applicable law.

 

[crimresearch]

Don't forget he had to complete an anger management course for that and also got fired from a job for anger issues.

The program usually entails paying fines and taking classes for anger management.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/who-is-george-zimmerman-20120325-1vs1a.html

 

[curi0us]

As has been pointed out numerous times it depends on who started the fight.

As I was quote responding to Leftysergeants post about the obligation of the aggressor to "withdraw" I think my point went over your head.

Even if the above is true, it tells us nothing about who was the aggressor. It doesn't even tell us how serious the fight was.

It doesn't tell us who started the fight, or how it started, but it does give us very audible evidence of an anguished person who was panicked and calling for help for an extened period of time. It's not proof, but it is a reason to doubt a narrative that paints the person who cried for help as the aggressor and sure doesn't sound like they had any option to "withdraw".

That Zimmerman was crying for help doesn't necessarily mean his life was in danger. It could just mean he's a pussy.

If a rape victim screamed for help even though her life wasn't in danger would you call her a pussy too?

 

[crimresearch]

Did you see the part that said "except deadly force"? If you are going to answer questions about the law, the least you could do would be to quote the proper sections of the applicable law.

Do you really think anyone is going to fall for that? Seriously??

 

[Dan O.]

There are no answers I wanted to hear except for the correct one. I tried to make a scenario that had a clear answer of yes or no. I assume I failed.

If there were clear answers, we wouldn't need lawyers to interpret the laws. 776.012 says yes. But...

776.041 Use 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.​

 

[Dan O.]

Do you really think anyone is going to fall for that? Seriously??

Do your own research then. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

 

[crimresearch]

Do your own research then. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I posted that along with the correct interpretations, many times, long ago, as you are well aware from the last time your game of making up bogus interpretations was debunked.

 

[Cylinder]

Did you see the part that said "except deadly force"? If you are going to answer questions about the law, the least you could do would be to quote the proper sections of the applicable law.

Read it again.

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;

The lethal force clause extends the use of force against unlawful use of force - it doesn't negate that part. If the reading you're claiming is true then it would be perfectly legal to shoot back at police, for instance. Or you could kill the shopowner you're robbing if they resist too zealously. Rape victim fights back? Kill her.


If you're gonna....

 

[triforcharity]

I not on either side, since I wasn't a witness, but one thing really bugs me. If you see someone that 'looks suspicious' but isn't actually in the act of, let's say, climbing into a window or something, then why not just walk up to them and nonchalantly strike up a conversation? "Hey how's it going? I'm GZ of the neighborhood watch...how are you doing this evening? Boy this rain sucks!" etc. Better social skills could have, possibly, averted this tragedy. My 2 cents.

I would agree with this. And yes, it makes perfect sense too.

 

[Dan O.]

I posted that along with the correct interpretations, many times, long ago, as you are well aware from the last time your game of making up bogus interpretations was debunked.

Google "except deadly force"

 

[Chris L]

That's a fascinating bit of legal commentary there... How exactly does that work?

How do you get 'an injunction' to seal the criminal records of *another person*? An injunction against whom? The court?

Or how do you 'seal' public school records more than they already are protected by FERPA?

My guess is that was meant for someone else.

 

[crimresearch]

Google "except deadly force"

There is nothing to Google. 'Except deadly force' is a limitation of proportionality, which I've gone over several times.

You've already been proven wrong in the post above. You're homemade legal 'denier' interpretations don't match facts in evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Read it again.

I've done more than read it, I've parsed it for you. If you take exception to the way I have parsed it then make your case and let's debate it. But don't just attack me because you don't like what I am saying.

 

[Dan O.]

There is nothing to Google. 'Except deadly force' is a limitation of proportionality, which I've gone over several times.

You've already been proven wrong in the post above. Yuo're homemade legal 'denier' interpretations don't match facts in evidence.

Attack the argument please

 

[johnny karate]

It doesn't tell us who started the fight, or how it started, but it does give us very audible evidence of an anguished person who was panicked and calling for help for an extened period of time. It's not proof, but it is a reason to doubt a narrative that paints the person who cried for help as the aggressor and sure doesn't sound like they had any option to "withdraw".

Sure it's a reason, just a crap one. That someone was screaming tells us nothing about why they were screaming or the circumstances surrounding their screaming. Anyone can scream any time for any reason. That you allege to know anything about the altercation because you think Zimmerman was screaming is ridiculous.

If a rape victim screamed for help even though her life wasn't in danger would you call her a pussy too?

Well, if we already know she's a rape victim, of course not. Do you have factual information determining Zimmerman's status as a victim? I'm betting you don't, and are simply making a cheap appeal to emotion.

 

[crimresearch]

My guess is that was meant for someone else.

Ooops

I was replying to the person you had quoted, and failed to scroll up all the way.

My apologies.

 

[crimresearch]

I've done more than read it, I've parsed it for you. If you take exception to the way I have parsed it then make your case and let's debate it. But don't just attack me because you don't like what I am saying.

You have parsed nothing. You have created a false interpretation that is the opposite of what the actual law says.

And your argument has been debunked with the facts that were posted dozens of times already in this and the other threads.

Ignoring the reality and pretending that facts are personal attacks is no more correct or useful than your legal advice.

 

[crimresearch]

Attack the argument please

You have no argument. You only have a fabrication that has been exposed as such by comparing it to the actual law.