So well said...... :)

As you probably know, most non-believers are non-believers because of their extensive religious background..

The basic laws of logic, evidence, science, nature and economics reveal religion as a delusion,imaginary...alive only in the minds of "believers". The dogmatic mysticism of religious people does not make sense and actually heavily contradicts itself. Religion was created by hut-dwellers thousands of years ago in order to gain power over their fellow human beings. New religions continue to crop up constantly. We know of 2800 "gods" mankind has worshipped over time. Religious people dismiss 2799 gods,except for their one "true" god.






I find, usually, most non believers have an extensive background of 'abuse' of some sort, and religion becomes the scapegoat that they feel relief ridding themself of,,,


just my observation though

ok, so throwing out the possiblity that the boy with sixty pounds less was not as strong as the man with the gun,,,,,


assuming the possibility that the boy WAS stronger

we still have, state of mind that is indicated somewhat by the mans words on the tapes

we still have that he seemed somewhat frustrated at people 'getting away' and assumed the boy was 'messed up'

we still have that he felt sure of his self to follow the boy at some point,,,,


we still have the history of the boy with no known violence in his past or problems with the law

we still have the history of the man repeatedly suspecting people of being criminals and calling in to police

we still have the history of the man having been arrested for violence in the past

we have the very REAL possibility that the boy would have felt just as THREATENED as the man,,,

we have the very REAL possibility that that same trigger that caused the man to attack an officer in the past may have been present that night with what he suspected was an 'A HOLE' about to 'get away

and the foregone problem of figuring out who had more of the 'right' to feel threatened

the one facing a man with a weapon, or the one being whooped on by the one who was facing a man with a weapon

the law would basically say, the last man standing is justified, because either one could logically and reasonably claim a fear for their lives,,,,

thats what complicates it further dragoness, that a physical altercation occured between assuming the boy was criminal and shooting him

and because noone knows for certain the circumstances of the altercation other than at some point the boy was winning,,,,


this law may justify the shooting due to lack of DEFINITIVE evidence of who was the 'aggressor'

billy, I am not arguing that exceptions dont exist

Im arguing that the law shouldnt presume the exception is automatically the most logical explanation,,,,

maybe the kid got the best of a suspicious man when the man wasnt expecting it to go down that way , but that STILL should not justify taking his life,,,,

especially when the law would GIVE that boy every right to confront the man even at the slightest provocation so long as he felt 'threatened' ( a man following you at night, might feel threatening, even if all he did was reach to touch you at some point after)

this boy was not YOU,, how old are you now? how old when you started training?

this boy had 17 years of LIFE total, body still developing

excuse it anyway you want, but I believe it would be as exceptional for this boy to have been a deadly threat to this man (if the gun werent in the picture) , as it would be for a woman (Without a weapon) to be a deadly threat to a man

and the law usually sides with the woman in that situation too,,,,

something to smile about,,,,,

tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/deaf-student-obama-sign-language_n_1369118.html?ref=mostpopular


what a thoughtful man,,,,and educated too,,,lol

wow,, Get out of here? are you serious?

do you realize how LANKY 6 foot 3 160 pounds is , especially in a teenager? with no known history of violence in his past?

and you are actually claiming the possibility that he could have been so much STRONGER than a man 220 pounds(with a past of physicla violence) as to invoke the fear of death in a physical fight?


wow, just wow,,,,

whatever though, at this point we can agree to disagree about the ridiculousness of these explanations/excuses

and both hope justice is served for the death of this boy,,,

I hope it is solved too.

But I fear the available 'facts' will be too slim to prove or disprove who initiated the threat of deadly force, to either justify or condemn this boys death.

well, we will all continually disagree on what is 'reasonable' in the case of a 200 pound+ man with a gun verse a 140 pound kid without one,,,

or a law encouraging people to NOT EVEN TRY to avoid confrontations,,,,and to respond to them with deadly force

it doesnt matter billy

this paragraph alone:

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.



leaves room for catastrophes to happen just by the mere fact of a WEAPON being present, and gives the last man standing the free pass,,,

at the very least, this gun should have been taken as part of an investigation,, IMHO

it didnt call for them to arrest the man on the spot, but it certainly was cause to take that boys death seriously enough to attempt a Thourough investigation

which will now, thank God, happen,,,

I have. You are just so in love with the 'right' to have a gun and take a life, that you arent paying attention to a persons 'right' to walk down the street without ending up dead because someone perceived them to be 'suspicious' or a threat,,,,

they are both civil rights issues, as far as Im concerned

the difference is, Im not trying to take peoples guns, Im just trying to see law enforcement take it more seriously when people with guns kill people,,,

REALLY? I dont think you need to keep disparaging my knowledge without being sure of your own facts and expertise....


According to Florida Statute 776.032 :776.032

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1)

A person who uses force as permitted in s.776.012, s.776.013, or s.776.031is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.


NOW READ THIS PART CLOSELY

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.


I wont argue the law anymore,, the point is this boys death deserves a thorough investigation and not to be cleanly swept aside and assumed as 'self defense'

and thanks to activism, that investigation will now take place,,,

if it is the call of a JUDGE, it is up to their perosnal interpretation of what reasonable is,,,,,,,

another problem, these cases do not have to go to jury let alone be thoroughly investigated,,,,

research some of the florida cases that have been cleard based upon this law and you will see what I refer to,,,,,it is giving citizens a pass to be vigilante murderers,,,

apparently not, since in THIS case, law enforcement was ready to close the case as 'self defense' before they even asked the shooter ONE QUESTION,, because he claimed he had been attacked

how does a thorough investigation happen before there is even an autopsy of the deceased


I know very well what Im talking about and is what caused the outrage in the first place,, this person was about to get a PASS with very shoddy investigative work even though a young man was SHOT DEAD,,,,

I would word it quite simply



in the case of an unarmed citizen being killed by an armed citizen, at all times, a thorough investigation into the circumstances shall be made


and shall ebe taken on a case by case basis of the facts instead of a universal pass......

I heard this on the radio,,,very sad,,,,,

seems like a good idea

1. that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:



'likely' and 'great bodily harm',,, is not well written, it leaves alot of GREY area and calls for a jury to presume the state of mind of the defendant, and the defendant to presume the state of mind of the (victim/deceased/potential criminal)?


2. unlawfully and forcefully entering

AGAIN. what does that mean? does that mean enterine without permission. BEcause what is the standard of proof that someone didnt have permission? what stops someone from using this to off someone they just dont like after actually ALLOWING them entry that noone else has witnessed,,?




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


THIS is the most troubling. IF even ONE of the two parties has a weapon, BOTH parties have reason to believe they are at risk of
death or great bodily harm if a scuffle ensues for ANY reason

so that if the one with the gun even approaches or grabs the one without, the one without can then presume a threat and use force (Even deadly) to protect themself,

likewise, the one with the gun, even if they were the 'aggressor' of the scuffle has the right to do the same....


and finally

4.  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


this is also vague,, what constitutes 'continuing', does that mean one second, one minute,, how long does the 'assalant' have to register that the person is trying to withdraw when there is a physical altercation
, when adrenaline is flowing from the initial threat the 'assailant' felt from the person and what is 'clear' indication,,is it simply retreating before the scuffle? or does it include screaming during the scuffle while still fighting?

its a poorly written law, that allows for too much grey area in which people will immediately jump to taking another persons life because of their personal 'fears',,,,,,

communication is key

odds are if one person is miserable in the marriage the other isnt thrilled either,,,,One of them has to be brave enough to bring an honest discussion to the table about how to move forward towards a better life


either together or seperately

Ahhhhh