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.

Oh but we do.

We have all heard the 911 tapes and he did follow after being told not 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?

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.

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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
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.

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

I figured you hunted.

Dead men tell no tales.

Motto of the wild wild west.

Just kill em if your in the wrong and they can't defend themselves to tell you did wrong.

Motto of the criminal mind too.

in this case, who had less of a right to stand their ground?

My comment: I like the law...


I refuse to acknowledge your request of "Then please explain why this law is problematic." That is begging the question...

My comment: I like the law...


I refuse to acknowledge your request of "Then please explain why this law is problematic." That is begging the question...

I am not anti gun but the controls and restrictions that be needed to stop this kind of foolishness and all other legal gun owner stupidity would limit who can have them a lot.

Pan in the other thread this was the claim being made, which makes this NOT begging the question, but asking for someone to explain there reasoning.

I see nothing wrong with the law, I challenge anyone who does to explain what the problem is that they see.

So far all we have is a few people who do not like the lack of evidence in a particular case.

What restrictions would prevent these occurrences in your opinion?

Passing extensive psychological exams yearly. 6 month waiting period. No criminal record even misdemeanors. Etc... I am forgetting something but I can't remember what it is.

And the as for the law it is flimsy and set up for what happened. Not for citizen best interest. This law (maker)wants to allow people to just kill for no good reason.