Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

The problem with your argument ....

Yes, you have.

I seem to recall that you recently wailed about someone calling you a liar. Really, sir, if you don't like the perception that you are dishonest, change your behavior.

This argument turns history on its head. Many individuals have been prosecuted in federal court for crimes that escaped state-level justice; in many cases, these are charged as civil rights crimes.

The Florida SYG law will not trump a civil rights charge against Zimmerman.

See, this is one of those questions about your integrity:

Tiassa: I'm still waiting for the picture of the road cone that George Zimmerman might have tripped over ....

Adoucette: You said it made no sense, those pictures show why it could make sense.​

You have the appearance of arguing that the stock photo of the road cone you provided is from the site of the shooting.

As I see it, you have provided an image of a road cone.

Until someone shows me the cones from the Retreat at Twin Lakes, your "cones" argument is pretty desperate.

Additionally, where are the conifers that would create those cones?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hint: That little bush on the left side of the frame, behind the hydrant? Insufficient.
Mario Tama's photo for Getty Images looks through a security gate at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.​

The question persists when we look at the scene itself:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cones: Anybody? Hello?​

What I'm getting at is that, while you are correct that tripping over a road cone or crunching over a seed cone might inspire one to say, "Fucking cones," that also appears to be wishful speculation. No evidence lending support to your theory has emerged.

If one wishes to establish, so that—

—the ears of a federal jury will believe "cones", it might be a good idea to provide some evidence that those cones were actually there. Otherwise, it's just desperate, straw-grasping speculation.

This is one of your sleights of rhetoric, Arthur: Self-defense and Stand Your Ground are two different things.

Throwing the first punch (i.e., starting the fight) is a self-defense standard. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, SYG is different.

What you seem to be trying to avoid here is Blow's question of whether or not self-defense is transferable. Zimmerman was stalking Martin, first in a car, and then on foot. Under SYG, the question is whether Martin had a right to fear severe bodily harm and stand his ground.

When you try to switch the argument to mere self-defense, you're dodging that question.

See above.

Here you're tilting windmills. We both agree that the law is problematic. Only one of us, however, is trying to establish George Zimmerman's innocence.

As far as Sonner and the self-defense aspect, that's a gamble; one of the big transformations of the SYG law is that one no longer has to proactively justify their self-defense claim.

But perhaps most disturbing is the fact that on this last point the police are probably right. In 2005, Florida was the first state to adopt a stand-your-ground law, which permits deadly force when one "reasonably believes," rightly or wrongly, that it's needed for self-defense—not just in one's home but in public, and whether or not there's an opportunity to retreat. This law didn't come about as a result of popular clamor. It's based on model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is funded in part by the National Rifle Association.

Florida's law is particularly aggressive: it puts the burden of proof not on the person claiming self-defense but on the prosecutor who disputes that claim. Since the law went into effect, the state has seen a dramatic rise in self-defense homicides. Supporters cite this as evidence that more citizens are successfully defending themselves. But how is killing someone a better outcome than simply running away?

Zimmerman didn't run away; he gave chase. Whatever the sequence of events in his physical confrontation with Martin, it was a confrontation that Zimmerman initiated.

(The Christian Century)​

The SYG law is what protects Zimmerman right now; reverting to mere self-defense means he's going to have to prove his story, and as the reliability of that story continues to erode, so does any claim of mere self-defense—Sonner will, if this case ever goes to trial, at some point invoke the SYG law, because that is all that protects Zimmerman, and seems to be the reason for such sloppy forensic work by the police.

Demonstrate that self-defense will be a passive, because-I-say-so standard.

Honest up, Arthur. Stop tilting windmills.

You gave a bad example:

This is another windmill, Don Quixote.

It's a completely irrelevant argument for the reasons I've noted; furthermore, the SYG law does not require that what a person one stands ground against is doing is illegal.

That is a desperate and dishonest argument, Arthur. Your wallet example simply doesn't work.

If you are stalking a person in a car, and then following them on foot, with the alleged intention of returning a dropped wallet, and never bother to hail the person, yeah, you might well be giving them reasonable fear for their life or safety.

In a federal civil rights prosecution, we can expect that the audiotape, the black-guy-in-a-hoodie suspicion, the "fucking (something)" recording, the security video, and the lack of hospital records—one would think those would be released by now, but they could still be forthcoming—may well be enough to convince a jury.

Remember U.S. v. Price et al., more famously known as the "Mississippi Burning Trial": Deputy Sheriff Price was convicted, as were private citizens: Jimmy Arledge (truck driver), Sam Bowers (KKK Grand Wizard; owner, Sambo Amusement Company), Alton Roberts (dishonorably discharged U.S. Marine; auto salesman), Jimmy Snowden (truck driver), Billy Wayne Posey (gas station attendant), and Horace Doyle Barnette (salesman); acquitted were Sheriff Lawrence Rainey and private citizens Bernard Akin (salesman), Olen Burrage (farmer), Frank Herndon (restaurateur), Richard Willis (Philadelphia police officer), Herman Tucker (bulldozer operator), and James Harris (truck driver); the jury hung on private citizens Edgar Ray Killen—a preacher convicted of manslaughter in 2005 for the 1964 incident—Jerry McGrew Sharpe (pulp hauler), and Ethel Glen Barnett (nominee to sheriff's office).

We very well could see U.S. v. Zimmerman, for general civil rights violations.

We will see what comes. Meanwhile, the fact that you claim to recognize the difference between not guilty and innocent does not mean you aren't arguing for Zimmerman's innocence.
____________________

Notes:

Shanklin, Mary. "Homeowners could pay in Trayvon Martin killing". Los Angeles Times. April 2, 2012. LATimes.com. April 2, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-homeowners-20120402,0,4496790.story

Editorial. "Preemptive self-defense". The Christian Century. March 29, 2012. ChristianCentury.org. April 2, 2012. http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-03/preemptive-self-defense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I haven't Tiassa.

First post (based on what was released that morning)

So what part of that is defending Zimmerman?

The part about him panicking, or simply pointing out that if that witness testimony holds up then the existing law would come down on his side?

If I was supporting Zimmerman, why did I say, after that summary, that the law needed to be changed?

No Tiassa, you need to change yours.

You still haven't recanted the lies you told about me concerning the oil, and not doing so makes you look not only exteamly ill informed but petty/childish as well.

Possibly, but AFAIK, they can't use those laws against Zimmerman.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except you said MORE than just that:

(bolding mine)

So you are using an arrest for something that was not accepted by the court as violence as evidence for a "History of Violence".

And no, there is no "court judgment against him for violence" either, it was for a charge WITHOUT VIOLENCE that there was a judgment for.

And no, it isn't an example of "pro-Zimmerman" bias, but Facts are Facts and so pointing out that an arrest that starts out as "With Violence" but the only charge accepted by the courts is a charge of Non Violence, can not be used as evidence of a "History of Violence" is not showing bias towards Zimmerman.
What one is Charged with and convicted of (by the Independent DA's office) is what matters.

http://syndicatednews.net/clients/syndicatednews/zimmerman_police_records.pdf

And actually they DID arrest him.

So when he was in handcuffs he was under arrest, and for instance had to have been read his Miranda Rights.

That doesn't mean the Police have to actually file charges though. (Book him)

Once you are arrested by the police, then the prosecutor's office will review the information/evidence before making an independent decision as to what charges, if any, should be filed. The required time in which a prosecutor must make a charge decision varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (72 to 48 hours).

Only if the DA does decide to charge you, will you be arraigned in court, at which point the charges against you will be read and you will be asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty.

BUT all Charging decisions are the responsibility of the DA, not the Police.

If you agree with that, then quit trying to foist the blame on the people who are stuck with that law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Didn't you start a whole thread complaining about someone accusing you of lying?

 

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

I think your later posts make the point pretty clearly:

• In #57 you made a reasonable point: "Well if the guy does have a gash on the back of his head and a broken nose, he probably has a reasonable legal argument that he was protecting himself from serious bodily harm." That pertains to him being not guilty. However, after the security video emerged, you tacked. In #117, you acknowledged that "it certainly doesn't appear that he had been severely beaten and his nose doesn't look broken to me", which would pertain to guilty or not guilty. In #123, your argument about the video evolved, saying it "doesn't particularly matter". In #129, the transformation is clearly operating within the realm of innocence; responding to Billvon, you asserted: "The police report says he was bleeding from his face, back of his head and had a fat lip. The video doesn't refute that, but it does indicate that he wasn't severely beaten either." Responding to Parmalee in #139, you asserted: "The video is not clear enough to state he got no blood on his clothes, and a broken nose doesn't have to be displaced or a gusher, so again, the video seems to indicate that he wasn't seriously hurt, but the Florida law doesn't require that to be the case anyway." By this time, you have gone from, "if the guy does have a gash on the back of his head and a broken nose" to "doesn't particularly matter to "Florida law doesn't require that to be the case anyway." At this point, there is no question that you are arguing innocence. Iceaura (#161) discussed the realities of a broken nose, including Zimmerman's posture; I have not located your response to that issue—if you could point me to it, I would much appreciate the assistance. In #141 you maintain your innocence argument in response to Billvon. What the case actually lacks, at present, is the hospital record or even the paramedics notes diagnosing a broken nose. One would think that, by this time, those records would be made available if they support Zimmerman's claim. It is possible that they will emerge, and that evidence would be very important in restoring some of Zimmerman's credibility. Meanwhile, however, you've gone from a reasonable if/then to the idea that it doesn't particularly matter and then standing on Florida law that the claimed broken nose isn't required for self-defense. True, but the claimed broken nose is important to the credibility of Zimmerman's account. That you're trying to dodge that point about Zimmerman's credibility is telling in the question of not guilty or innocent.

• The problem with your "cones" argument is pretty straightforward, though you seem to have some problem comprehending. If your "cones" suggestion is correct, then we should be able to find some evidence of those cones at or near the scene. Do you understand that? You offered an explanation of how "it could make sense". I agree; that could make sense. If there are cones of either variety involved, then your assertion makes sense. Without some evidence of those cones, however, it makes no sense. The fact that Zimmerman's primary defenders in the public square aren't going with "cones" is also suggestive in this consideration. In #202, you continue to try to make a point about the "cones" argument without ever addressing the key question: Where are those cones?

• The "wallet" argument deliberately changes the context of how and why one is following another. One can make it relevant by considering the conduct of the one following to return the other's wallet; as I noted, "I mean, sure, we can believe that if I'm trying to return your wallet to you, I'm going to cruise along slowly, stalking you, in my car, and then get out and follow you on foot without ever once attempting to hail you and say, 'Excuse me, sir, you dropped your wallet.'" Of course, in your response to that point, you changed the subject.​

Those are three examples of you clinging to dubious threads of argument that would attest to Zimmerman's innocence.

Another is your argument that, "There is no Florida law that makes what Zimmerman did, when he was just following Martin, illegal"; it's a red herring. It doesn't matter if following Martin is or isn't illegal; if Zimmerman's actions seemed threatening to Trayvon Martin, then it is Martin who had the right to stand his ground, not Zimmerman. You are asserting a non sequitur fact—that is, a fact that may be correct but has no real bearing on the issue toward which it is applied.

The twist you just threw in—"even if he stands his ground, the law doesn't give him the right to throw the first punch"—is yet another example of your argument for innocence.

Your post contains any number of rhetorical sleights tipping your hand:

• "Which is Zimmerman's claim, and unfortunately one which no one else claims to have seen in order to dispute his version and so the State has no witness who saw the start of the fight." — And yet count up the arguments you make against the erosion of his story. Whether or not Zimmerman really did have a broken nose—i.e., whether or not he lied about having a broken nose—"doesn't particularly matter"; that the question of the broken nose is not required to justify action according to statute is a distraction.

• "I've never said he was innocent, just that like you said, based on the evidence so far in the record, there is not enough to convict." — There is the explicit, and there is the tacit. You can claim all you want that you never explicitly said Zimmerman is innocent, but at the same time your ongoing conduct has every appearance of pursuing that line. So give us a break, sir. Part of your credibility problem is that you act as if you think people are really, really stupid; such as giving chase.

• "There is no evidence he 'gave chase'." — Indeed, there one can construe the definition of giving chase to mean something more physically strenuous than suspiciously following someone, but it is true that Zimmerman abandoned his car and attempted to pursue Martin on foot. For most people, this is an acceptable definition of giving chase. But not for you. Like the whole bit about oil. Certainly, "oil" can mean crude. It can also mean a market sector. You pick out differences, pretend that other people are too stupid to understand them, and insist on your definition. Tell us, were the hydrocarbon magazine editors stupid, or sinister? The evidence that Zimmerman "gave chase" is his own words. Or perhaps you might answer this one: Are the editors of The Christian Century stupid, or sinister?

• "I quoted Zimmerman's Attorney. Craig A. Sonner, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer, said on CNN that he would not use the Stand Your Ground defense should his client be charged in the shooting. He said he would use self-defense." — And that has nothing to do with the issue it responds to: Demonstrate that self-defense will be a passive, because-I-say-so standard. The difference here is one you've noted about the SYG law: "... imminent fear of great bodily harm". SYG removes the burden of proving you were in danger when you defended yourself. You ducked the point.

• "No, as I explained to several others, that is not STALKING and would not likely protect you even under Florida's very lenient Self-Defense laws." — I think you're aware that there are differences between legal and vernacular definitions of stalking; you're relying on the legal. Merriam-Webster, however, defines stalk, as a verb, as, "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily". Once again, your argument depends on disqualifying any definition except the one you assert.​

The problem with your approach to this case, Arthur, is that people are not as stupid as you pretend they are.

I would expect a federal case, if filed, would fall under 18 USC §249, most commonly known as the "Matthew Shepard" law, and formally known as the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act".

We'll see how that goes.
____________________

Notes:

"stalk". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2012. Merriam-Webster.com. April 2, 2012. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalking

 

NO NO NO

Those are ALL discussing the LEGALITIES involved in comparison to the LOW BAR of the Florida Law.

Not once do I mention that ANY of this makes him innocent.

Indeed, Innocence is not something we are likely to ever be able to deduce because, like the State, we don't know how the fight started, and I've always maintained that's the key to that concept.

Absolutely it does.
YOU are using the LEGAL term of STALKING for Zimmerman's actions.

Which would indeed change the legal dynamic.
But what he was doing was not illegal, and that is important.

BOTH men had the right, in Florida to "stand their ground", but we don't know who escalated it from just standing one's ground to a fight.

No, it's not because I point out we don't know who did:

Again, nothing to do with INNOCENCE and all to do with the legalities involved.

Yes, but we are discussing the this as a LEGAL case and so of course the LEGAL definitions apply when discussing it.​

 

Because there is no real need to and - for the thousandth time - I prefer to watch you thrash and flail against aknowledging basic facts that everyone else is already familiar with. It is fatal to your credibility.

Again, because you seem unable to understand: I am not interested in getting you to admit error, as I have long known that you do not engage in good faith, ever. So, I am only interested in ensuring that nobody else regards your position as anything other than the dishonest, reactionary hit-job that it is. You are simply a target, and not a participant in a "debate." This is the inevitable, fair result of the program of dissembly and bullshitting that you have spent so much time here pursuing.

Why would I do that?

Why is it that you can't go a single fucking sentence without ducking behind some bullshit tactic?

I've explained that to you very, very clearly like a dozen times now. Including in this very post. Why do you keep saying otherwise? Are you lying, or are you really as mentally defective as you present yourself here? Do you think that repeatedly begging that question is doing anything positive for your credibility?

I'm not making any "claims" that require "support." Statements of known, basic fact are just that, and your tactic of pretending that they are "claims" which need "proof" is a transparent ploy to avoid dealing with reality. The fact that the powers-that-be either, apparently, recognize this or are simply ignoring your bullshit outright is no criticism of them.

By all means, though: prove me wrong. Write us up a list of every piece of publicly-available evidence, and explain how they all fit into your favored narrative explanation of the events. If you are not totally ignoring various inconvenient witness statements, and only employing the convenient statements cherry-picked for you by the right-wing propaganda outlets, then such will be clear for all to see.

 

Good lord, the lengths that you will go to in order to gin up reasons to whine are preposterous. Sounds like it's time you had a bottle and a nap, crybaby.

 

Does this shouting thing work for you in real life, or something?

I'd punch your moustache off, if you tried it on me in person

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't see where anybody here has agreed to limit their considerations to strictly legalistic issues, here. Maybe Paendo, but certainly not anyone at direct issue here.

I do see where you have a long history of casuist insistences on such definitions when they become rhetorically convenient for you. Which is why you get exactly nowhere when you try it, these days. Heck, I was already poking holes in your thin pretext of legalism days ago. Who do you imagine you're fooling? You think Tiassa is going to be cowed by this sort of crap, right after he called you on your underhanded "definition" tactics? You're past "cheap," and well into "pathetic" at this point.

 

The core of your argument

Sidestepping the issue. To reiterate the point already on record:

There is the explicit, and there is the tacit. You can claim all you want that you never explicitly said Zimmerman is innocent, but at the same time your ongoing conduct has every appearance of pursuing that line. So give us a break, sir. Part of your credibility problem is that you act as if you think people are really, really stupid ....​

No, seriously, just think about it for a moment:

"I never explicitly said ...."

—There is explicit and tacit; one does not need to be explicit if their behavior makes the point tacitly.

"Not once did I explicitly say ...."​

I mean, come on. Do you really think people are so stupid that they cannot see through that fallacious form?

Ah, yes. Because Arthur says so.

We're finally down to the core of your argument, and its shape surprises nobody.

 

stalking is more than just a "legal word"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Ie it was a term for a set of behaviors which Governments sort to make a criminal offence and there for chose to use the already familar term.

 

Correct. If you were arrested ten times for DUI's, and all ten times you got off on a technicality, you would still have a history of being arrested for DUI. No matter how much you tried to spin it.

There is a court judgment against him for domestic violence that resulted in a restraining order.

Not in your case. They are a bunch of incorrect pro-Zimmerman statements that you probably heard on your local FOX News affiliate.

It is unfortunate that the pro-Zimmerman people are resorting to lies to try to defend this guy. When they try to hide his past it makes him look like he's trying to hide his past.

Bill Lee:“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense. Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

Looks like Bill Lee was lying about that too, then. No wonder he was removed. (Or 'volunteered to step down' if you like.)

Nope. I think the only blamestorming going on here is coming from you.

 

No Tiassa, in fact it's just the opposite because I expect people on a Science based forums, in general, to be reasonably intelligent. If I wanted to discuss things with stupid people I'd do it someplace else besides a Science Forum.

It's pretty simple Tiassa, to make the claim he is innocent one has to say that and I haven't.

I have only been discussing the legalites of this case.

So even though we have both looked at the same evidence and come to the same conclusion, that under Florida Law it is unlikely that Zimmerman could be convicted, YOU who are trying to "read between the lines" of my posts discussing the evidence and claim that I'm implying that he is innocent even though I've not ever done that.

So let's explore, in fact, what WOULD it take to be able to claim that Zimmerman was Innocent and not just that the state couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Well for one, it would require that Martin start the fight by throwing the first punch, and it would have to happen in a situation where he wasn't being substantially provoked to do so by Zimmerman.

But as I've said, we don't know who threw the first punch or what was said/done in that initial confrontation.

What I said about this:

Hmmm? That doesn't sound like I'm claiming that Zimmerman is Innocent if I'm also claiming he confronted/stopped him for no reason but "Walking while Black".

Secondly, he wold be innocent if Martin was in fact beating on Zimmerman and a reasonable person seeing the end of that fight would conclude that he was justified in using his weapon on Martin to stop the beating.

Even the one witness who says he saw Zimmerman crying for help and Martin on top pounding him, left the scene and went inside to call 911, and did not see what was going on when the shot was fired, so even assuming this person's testimony is completely true, we still don't know if they were still fighting when Martin was shot, or if perhaps Martin had gotten off of Zimmerman when he was shot.

What did I say about this:

Again not a claim that at the crucial point that Zimmerman was innocent.
I said I thought he panicked, but killing someone because you panic would likely get you at least Manslaughter in most jurisdictions besides Florida.

No Tiassa, not because I say so, but because the State of Florida has a specific statute against Stalking and so since we are discussing a LEGAL issue, about Self Defense under Florida Law and since Stalking is a specific crime which would affect that claim of Self Defense, by using that word you are implying something that is not true.

 

martin was NOT an upstanding child. he has issues maybe moreso than others.. Zimmerman is the same he jumpd an officer making an arrest from what i hear..

this is waht we know
1. zimmer DISOBEYED the dispaters plee to stay in the vehicle.
2. zimmer stated he was betterd and had a broken nose.
3. zimmer was following martin.
4. zimmer shot an unarmed child AFTER following him

1. martin was not your honor student.
2. martin was on suspention for having weed on him at school.
3. martin screamed out for help

my question is..
1.if you get out and follow somone how can you proclaim self defence
2. if someone was following you would you turn around and "stand your ground?
IF martin did stand his ground which is what all evidence supports.. how can the attacker use that as his defence?

IE in florida bullshit law if someone follows me.. i turn stand my ground.. attack him and he attacks me back at what point does the follower proclaim self defence? techically zimmer DID defend himself. after the person he was following used the "stand your ground"
soo where do you draw the line?

 

No, if you are not convicted of a crime, regardless of how many times you were charged with that crime, you can't claim someone has done the crime.

Now if you want to claim that the person did the crimes but in each case they got off on a technicality, then it would be encumbant on you to DETAIL those technicalities so as to make your point.

But the Court, which impartially reviews the charges, and decides what the actual charge should be, is NOT a Technicality.

But as the record shows neither was arrested, so the police saw no actual evidence of domestic violence. There was a mutual restraining order but that is still not evidence of violence.

I'm not defending him, but I believe everyone is entitled to the truth and so while I've don't believe I've made any incorrect statements about Zimmerman, but if you have evidence of one then link to it and we can resolve it, I'd want it corrected as well. I'm not hiding his past, as I produced the ENTIRE police record, not just a snippet to show your claim that he had a "History of Violence" wasn't supported by the Police Record.

No, at that time, Zimmerman had been released and so his use of Arrest would mean to "Arrest him again", which they wouldn't do unless they got a Warrant for his arrest from the DA. But the DA wouldn't issue one because of the Florida Self Defense and the Immunity from Prosecution laws the DA has to operate under.

Here's the original arrest report, that has the charge being: Homicide - Negligent Manslaughter.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf

You are in fact under arrest when the Police restrain you and prevent you from leaving, which is why that's when they have to read you your Miranda rights, and as the video showed of Zimmerman coming in to the police station in handcuffs, he was clearly under arrest at that time.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2437

 

And yet everyone going to your referenced source can see it does not support your assertions and thus it is you who has no creibility. I posted the Wiki reference that showed your assertions, that that key piece of evidence had been contradicted, were not true.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2921472&postcount=166

Which is expected when one refuses to post a source for their claims in a thread.

 

You are somewhat misinterpreting the "Stand Your Ground" law.

It doesn't say you can attack someone because they are following you.

It simply says you don't have a duty to retreat when someone is threatening you, and that you can defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear they are about to inflict great bodily harm on you.

But if you do attack them, and they are legally there and aren't actually threatening you, then they have the exact same right to stand their ground and defend themselves from your attack as well.

Since no one saw the confrontation start, none of us are in position to determine what actions were reasonable.

The very weird part of the Florida Law, is BOTH men had the right to be there and BOTH men had the right to stand their ground and both could claim self defense.

Even if Zimmerman was not intending to imminently inflict great bodily harm on Martin, since he had a gun, he clearly had the means to do so, and thus had Martin prevailed (say he got Zimmerman's gun from him and shot him dead) the State would have to prove that Martin's fear was not unreasonable and do it beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that didn't happen, and Florida's law sides with the person left alive in a conflict if there are no witnesses or physical evidence to dispute their claim.

If you can come up with just one impartial witness that corroborates your Self Defense narrative, you appear to be almost untouchable under existing Florida Law.

 

Just clearing up some old shit:

That would be Monday Morning, just hours after the shooting, not 3 nights as alleged.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/RetreatNeighborhoodNotification.pdf

 

Now I have.

I found 4 calls regarding Black Males (including Martin) and 3 regarding White Males, Seems reasonable since apparently the complex he was at was about half White, but do check yourself, I could have missed one, there are a lot of calls since 2004.

Of course one of the calls for a Black Male was for a kid, reported to be 7-9 years old walking alone along a busy street and he said he was concerned for the kid's safety.

Regardless, looking at all these calls I see no support for your claim that he was targetting Black kids for no defensible reason.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf

 

No I haven't ducked anything, I just don't think that the SYG aspect of the Self Defense law has any bearing on this.

The SYG provision simply says you don't have to run and can defend yourself.

But if you "Stand your Ground" and injure the person you claim is attacking you, claiming Self Defense, the SYG provision doesn't remove any burden as you claim. With or without the SYG provision, in a self defense claim the State has to prove that your fear of imminent and great bodily harm was not reasonable.

Only in your "Castle" does the SYG law get you the legal presumption that reasonable fear exists (meaning the State can't even challenge it regardless of any facts they discover).

But this event does not fall under that protection.