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'

I am not excusing anything. This is part of YOUR problem. Your only concern is what you think is just, not facts which should create an objective perspective.

What I am doing is calling into question the imaginary story which is being presented in the media.

I am not taking sides, if Zimmerman was doing anything but following and reporting, if he struck Martin starting the fight, if he pushed martin and then got owned in a fight, if martin was never asked to relent, or if he did relent and THEN was shot all of these factors would mean Zimmerman is going to prison for a long time, but none of them have a thing to do with some crazy imbalance in capability between the two people.

You do not know Zimmerman's physical capabilities.
You do not know Martins physical capabilities.

YET, you are judging those capabilities when coming to your conclusions. This is flawed, highly uncritical thinking.

It is the same highly flawed sensational thinking that is fueling this controversy, and its wrong.

The MANY (unknown) factors involved with the relative strength cause any such conclusions to be premature.

This makes your conclusions flawed. THAT is my argument which I have logically shown to be accurate.

Again incorrect, in any other state without a SYG law the same set of circumstances would still cause the same situation. The witness says Zimmmerman was on his back being beaten on by an attacker on top, which offers a reasonable belief he could not flee.

This makes SYG unimportant to the facts on the ground.

I feel threatened by the right wing fanatics trying to take away my rights, I guess I need to "stand and deliver" eh??? Only I wouldn't use a stupid gun because they are stupid. I would use a net and restrain them all and tickle the shyte out them until they say uncle.

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,,,,

What rights are you referring to, the right to due process, the civil rights which prevent Zimmerman from being arrested without probably cause? . . . and which right wing fanatics?

This post just seems like baiting to me. Be specific please.

Well and criminals do tend to silence their victims so that "dead men tell no tales". He did hunt him down.

Do you think following is the same as hunting someone down?

What is the difference between following and hunting someone down?

These are exactly the kinds of questions that must be answered for you to reach these conclusions, and when a person does not do the work to answer these questions the conclusions they reach are flawed.

Being a critical thinker this is the only reason I care about this case. The worst kind of thought is being used here, emotional rhetoric with 0 objective criteria.

Baiting what a tickle fest?

Where have you been? Women's rights are under attack all over the place on the right wing aisle these days, sheesh.

Name one. Ill help you fight for it, just make a logical case and you will have my support. My main focus politically is supporting individual rights. I support the ACLU, I support the NRA, I support all organizations which work to secure the rights laid out in the constitution and BOR.

Stand your ground is VERY important for individual rights.

You are lying here. Sorry.

You do care and you are defending a flimsy stupid gun stupid law because it has shown itself for the stupidity of what it is.

OH He hunted after being told to stop following, with a gun, with intention, that is hunting. Sorry for the disappointment I know you feel over that.

I have made logical arguments, counter than with logical arguments of your own. Otherwise your just posting to stir up resentment which is against the forum rules.

The law in question deals with how contact is initiated, and if a person breaks off contact, then the other party reengages. Please do read the original post for clarification. (not that we the public have any information regarding these details: which is the foundation of my argument, without these details you CANNOT know who was responsible for the escalation of the fight)

Instead of detailing the criteria of the law which details these facets, you just want to call me a liar to support your illogical conclusions. That is called poisoning the well, which is a logical fallacy.

Since you are a member of the Aclu good place to start go to their site and hit the women's rights button and there will be lists.

Hope you being male can understand the fight, it seems hard for men to understand since they don't have uterus' or the health issues that go with having a woman's body.

What does this have to do with Stand your ground?

I support women's reproductive rights BTW if that is what you are talking about. I personally cant think of anything else lately in the media about women's rights. This just seems like a tool you use to beat up men you disagree with.

I am libertarian, pro choice, pro personal responsibility. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Best of both worlds!

Oh but we do.

We have all heard the 911 tapes and he did follow after being told not to and that was before the shooting so he was hunting.

It was obvious from a few words exchanged on the tapes. I know you heard the tapes right?

Do you read your post above mine?

That will answer your question.

everyone heard the tapes, however

Zimmermans account is that AFTER he was told to stop, he merely was going back to his truck

and , for some reason, the boy who had just RUN away from him, came back and JUMPED him

thus, self defense

and his state of mind will play no part necessarily if enough people believe that he was attacked by the boy,, or even that the boy was beating him (whether he was the initial attacker or not)


since the boy did at some point beat him, it will be zimmermans word against a corpse about what 'started' the confrontation, and by stand your law, that might not matter either,,,,

This is following, which is not illegal.

Please explain to me where on the force Continuum following lays?

Do you know what the force continuum is? Can you explain its applicability?

You keep parroting on about SYG, even after I have shown that based on the witness testimony it is not a factor in this case.

That we have a possible lack (I say possible becuase the police have no relased all the witness testimony yet) of evidence is not an argument against SYG. This is the logical inconsistency I am arguing against here.

You know, Zimmerman has done a great disservice to the second amendment community, I wish this had never happened. I am all about non-confrontational tactics when dealing with these kinds of situations, HOWEVER I am all about logical thought, proper use of the law, and NOT violating a persons rights becuase we the community want "heads to roll" That leads to anarchy.

Basically it comes down to that law being flimsy and dangerous.

This is not the wild wild west and we sure as heck don't want to return to those times by any means.

But we are speaking of the south and they take a while to catch up down there to human equality and human dignity and human respect from my experience.

I have shown this line of reasoning to be fallacious, yet you continue to use it.

The law is fine, the evidence is what is lacking. No law can create evidence. In this case if you ignore the evidence maybe you do end up with justice, in thousands of other cases you may have just put a person who legitimacy defended themselves in prison. A victim of an attacker, and a victim of the state.

That is not justice. That is not Innocent until proven guilty.

What you are really advocating is guilty until proven innocent.

Following with the intention of harm is hunting, you didn't know that?

I figured you hunted.