George Zimmerman Is In Legal Trouble Again

the question you need to aske yourself is who is the aggressor? the next question you need to ask yourself is what facts determine who the aggressor is?

If someone followed you, confronted you, and challenged you withou any authority, who is the aggressor?

 

I don't think you are understanding my comments. This post makes no sense in relation to my opinion of this case. I am not supporter of Flayva Trayv if you have somehow come to that notion.

 

So, according to you, once the defender pulls their gun to defend against the aggressor, the aggressor has a right of self-defense to kill the defender? Because that's what we're talking about here. The Left complains Zimmerman was the aggressor since he was following Martin. That's not aggression. IF Martin then attacked Zimmerman, then Martin did become an aggressor and Zimmerman had a right to self defense. Now you are saying that Martin, if he'd survived that shot had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman in self defense. Interesting. Such logic should find a lot of bodies lying around if only more people would carry guns.

 

movies.... leo decaprio played a slave owner..... you seem to be confusing movies with realities.....



TM called Zimmerman a creepy (explicative) craka.....

that's context, and it's racist

 

I have read the statue. I have interprreted the statue based on the facts of the case. That is why I said "Technically" in my response. And yetr, you still do not deny those three facts based in my response. You completely ignored them just like a jailhouse lawyer does. And that does not show how well you know the law

 

The question you need to answer is how did become an aggressor under Florida law as posted, cite the clause that made him an aggressor posing imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to Martin.

 

All of that is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make to you.

The point, specifically, that being the aggressor you do not completely lose your right to self defense as you have claimed.

Now, I have cited the law proving conclusively what I have said. If you do not have the intellect or ability to read that statute and comprehend it then I cannot help you.

 

they have slow shallow lives that exist only for causing discord

 

A comedic act is a form of entertainment just as movies are a form of entertainment. But it shows whether or not the context of the word in determining how a word is deragatory or not.

 

Which means there was the possibility if Trayvon had survived the shooting
he could have been looking at a Hate Crime charge.For those of ballbuster
Prosecutors like Angela Corey who live to play politics and overcharge.

 

here we go again.....how is it you know what went on in his head?
Were you there?
Did you talk to George personally?
Did you give your full eye witness testimony at the trial?
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you are speculating

 

It's still a derogatory term even when a comedian uses it.

 

Well then how come Chris Rock is never treated as was Michael Richards
when he used the " N " word at a comedy club.
Chris Rock gets celebrated on - Oprah - while Kramer { Seinfeld } has his
stand-up career ruined.

 

Actually, it is all relevant to that statue. Look at subparagraph 2, then look at sub paragraphn 2a as well.

 

Alright...I'll play along.

Q. who is the aggressor? A. Flayva Trayv

Q. what facts determine who the aggressor is? A. The person who first initiates force against another.

Q. If someone followed you, confronted you, and challenged you without any authority, who is the aggressor? A. nobody yet. There is no "authority" needed to confront, follow, or challenge anybody. None of these things constitute an initiation of force against another.

 

Actually if not for that GUN,Zimmerman would be dead and his relatives
privy to a closed coffin { his head a battered pulp }
Little Trayvon would probably be treated as some hero and let off the
hook with community service and within a years time be part of his dream
team of Gangsta wannabee come to life.

 

Conversely, if Trayvon hadn't been such a racist that he attacked a "creepy-ass cracker" he'd not only still be alive, but George's life wouldn't be ruined.

Putting all the blame on George and giving Trayvon a complete pass on all of his actions that night is wrong. It's not only wrong for that situation, but for a society which allows it. Neither were completely wrong but neither were completely innocent. What happened that night is that the actions of a couple of dumb asses resulted in a brutal fight and one person using a gun to defend themselves. It's a tragedy Martin is dead, but it's also a tragedy Zimmerman is being blamed for things of which he is not guilty.

 

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

Zimmerman never provoked or threatened the use of force.

(a) Such force or threat of 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 or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

Martin never had a fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had "escaped" even if there were such a threat

 

This is one convoluted post full of assumptions of what I am saying.

Let me try to clarify my point even though I think I've already made myself exceedingly clear.

Suppose I slap you across the face. I am the aggressor. This does not mean that I have no right to self defense and that you are free to pull a gun and shoot me, or pound my head off pavement, or begin striking me in the head with a brick, bat, or other object.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct.

I'm happy to see that someone other than myself here understands the law.

 

too bad the jurors did not understand the rules better....

 

I took my lead from you, sir.

That is a clearer example than what you've previously been spouting. However, in the case we are discussing, we're not talking about a slap. We're talking about someone having their head bashed into the pavement. When Zimmerman drew his gun to defend himself, are you asserting that Martin had a right of self-defense to kill Zimmerman first in that instance?

 

Lol yeah, thats it. They didnt understand the rules.

 

Zimmerman, Bush, Palin...AGH!!...Zimmerman, Bush, Palin...AGH!!...Zimmerman, Bush, Palin...AGH!...Zimmerman, Bush, Palin...AGH!


These are, apparently, the three biggest issues facing the nation...lolololololololol!!!

I vaguely saw something the other day about the Katrashians closing their store in CA, or something like that...woooo, OMG, what ever are we going to do without it!!!

 

So Trayvon is now a racist and deserves to be shot because he called George a creepy assed cracker?? George was behaving like a creepy assed cracker.

 

Makes no nevermind.Because the female judge in that Trial was
Pro-Trayvon.She made an arse of herself often.
Culminating in a total breach of protocol.She hurriedly demanded to know
johnny-on-the-spot if George Zimmerman planned to take the stand.
She presumptuously asked George in court without even allowing himself
time to discuss it with his counsel if he was Going to Take The Stand.
Totally Improper.