Zimmerman - Self Defense Class or Benching 500 an Up? whats next?

[SLYY]

This is taken from florida statutes regarding self defence , this section explains that if you are the one responsible for provoking the confrontation you no longer have the right to "stand your ground" and are actually obligated to exhaust every means of escape before using deadly force.


"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of
this chapter is not available to a person who:
(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."

Where does it say in the statute that:

"the one responsible for provoking the confrontation you no longer have the right to 'stand your ground'" ??

[Conker]

Where does it say in the statute that:

"the one responsible for provoking the confrontation you no longer have the right to 'stand your ground'" ??

you don't seem very bright, so i will attempt to break it down.

read:

The justification described in the preceding sections of
this chapter is not available to a person who:[preceding sections set out usual florida self defence rights]
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

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

OK so if your actions led to a person using force against you (you provoked the confrontation) then you are obligated to exhaust every reasonable means of escape.

"stand your ground" states that you have no obligation to retreat/escape ....do you see the difference?

[SLYY]

you don't seem very bright, so i will attempt to break it down.

read:

The justification described in the preceding sections of
this chapter is not available to a person who:[preceding sections set out usual florida self defence rights]
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

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

OK so if your actions led to a person using force against you (you provoked the confrontation) then you are obligated to exhaust every reasonable means of escape.

"stand your ground" states that you have no obligation to retreat/escape ....do you see the difference?

It is evident that you are unable to read and comprehend a statute.  I asked you a question in my previous post that you attempted to answer by insulting me and re-posting the statute.  I will bait your stupidity once again:

Where does the statute state "provoking the confrontation?"   

[Conker]

It is evident that you are unable to read and comprehend a statute.  I asked you a question in my previous post that you attempted to answer by insulting me and re-posting the statute.  I will bait your stupidity once again:

Where does the statute state "provoking the confrontation?"   

lol please tell me you are deliberately trying to be obtuse now?!!

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself = provoking the confrontation...no?

[240 is Back]

Trayvon ran two blocks to avoid zimmerman.

ZImm ignored police recommendation, grabbed his gun, and ran two blocks in the darkness, while cursing the kid he'd never met and accusing him of crimes.

Nobody saw the initial confrontation or knows what happens.  So the circumstances leading up to it really matter here.  

A fight ensued, zimm was on the bottom, received minor head cuts, and shot the kid.

A jury will have to look at this and decide who caused the death and why.

[bigmc]

Trayvon ran two blocks to avoid zimmerman.

ZImm ignored police recommendation, grabbed his gun, and ran two blocks in the darkness, while cursing the kid he'd never met and accusing him of crimes.

Nobody saw the initial confrontation or knows what happens.  So the circumstances leading up to it really matter here.  

A fight ensued, zimm was on the bottom, received minor head cuts, and shot the kid.

A jury will have to look at this and decide who caused the death and why.

they cant add addditional legal weight to the circs based on that premises

you need to learn the law

[SLYY]

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself = provoking the confrontation...no?

The "no" is what is correct.  They are NOT the same.  I hope this is starting to make some sense to you.

[Nomad]

Thanks for posting the pics, no broken nose, no black eyes and he looks like he picked some acne on the back of his head and it bled.

Witness account: "I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops," "I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop.

"After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down.

"It was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead."

Zimmerpig is a sociopath who will go to any lengths to serve his own selfish agenda, he is a cold blooded murderer and will be punished accordingly!


That's ironic since right now you are sounding exactly like a sociopath. Conveniently choosing to discredit or ignore any information that goes contrary to your beliefs. Tsk tsk....
   

[Conker]

Trayvon ran two blocks to avoid zimmerman.

ZImm ignored police recommendation, grabbed his gun, and ran two blocks in the darkness, while cursing the kid he'd never met and accusing him of crimes.

Nobody saw the initial confrontation or knows what happens.  So the circumstances leading up to it really matter here.  

A fight ensued, zimm was on the bottom, received minor head cuts, and shot the kid.

A jury will have to look at this and decide who caused the death and why.

the bolded is very true. strong circumstantial evidence can be enough on its own to bring a conviction. and the evidence available points to zimmerman having ill will towards trayvon, chasing him, and being very eager not let him escape...thus provoking a physical altercation

also the lack of injuries to zimmerman's face and trayvon's hands contradict both the medical report and zimmerman's account of waht happened.

zimmerman's facial injuries didn't show up till the next day?(sounds like bull as facial swelling and thick lips are near instant after be struck in the face)...but even if you accept that, how do you explain the lack of injuries to trayvon's hands if he inflicted all of these facial injuries?....

[240 is Back]

and ever if trayvon did whoop his ass...

he's an armed man, 10 years older, who just chased him thru the rainy night for 2 blocks.   Kid was probablys cared shitless.  Even if gun was holstered, you know his ass was probably gripping the butt like many do when getting ready for an altercation.

Trayvon would be legal to defend himself - based upon the fact he feared for his life.  it's VERY reasonable to think trayvon would be scared of ZImmerman.  man with gun chases kid for 2 blocks in the darkness.   Yes, definitely.   Trayvon could have shot him or hit him with a brick and claimed he feared for his life.

I know getbiggers are badasses, but if some armed dude chased you in the dark for 2 blocks for no reason - most of us would be thinking we're in for the fight of our lives.  Very reasonable to believe this person wishes to do us harm, and there isn't much time for discussion with zimm's gun involved.

Trayvon could have been trying to disarm him.  The 911 call shows NONE of the bullshit threats zimm claim trayvon was saying at the time.   "This is your last day on earth" or something - the 911 tape hears other stuff but not that....

[Conker]

The "no" is what is correct.  They are NOT the same.  I hope this is starting to make some sense to you.

Ok then, explain the difference between provoking a physical confrontation and provoking someone to use force against you?

[SLYY]

Ok then, explain the difference between provoking a physical confrontation and provoking someone to use force against you?

You have continually stated "provoking the confrontation," including your most recent response

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself = provoking the confrontation...no?

As I stated,

The "no" is what is correct.  They are NOT the same.  I hope this is starting to make some sense to you.

On a positive note, I actually think this is starting to sink in for you and therefore my time has not been fully wasted.

[Nails]

justice for  Tray-Tray

[Conker]

You have continually stated "provoking the confrontation," including your most recent response

As I stated,



On a positive note, I actually think this is starting to sink in for you and therefore my time has not been fully wasted.

lol
from my post further up the page:

"the prosecution will ask zimmerman, if he understands that following a complete stranger at night and then running after that stranger when they run is very likely going to cause a physical confrontation"

anyway you carry on playing semantics.

bottom line is if you follow and then chase(when they run) a complete stranger late at night, it is reasonable for them to believe their safety is in danger and i don't think it will be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that given the circumstances trayvon was justified in thinking he was under physical threat and justified in striking 1st.

this is if it is even accepted that zimmerman is telling the truth that trayvon hit him 1st...remember there is already recorded incidents of zimmerman changing his story and contradicting himself, so how much of his testimony is going to stand up after the prosecution have finished ripping him to shreds is anybody's guess.

[bigmc]

it will all boil down to the fight

no matter what happened before

if zimmerman can convince the jury he was on the ground getting the shit beat out of him

then he will be aquitted

[SLYY]

lol
from my post further up the page:

"the prosecution will ask zimmerman, if he understands that following a complete stranger at night and then running after that stranger when they run is very likely going to cause a physical confrontation"

anyway you carry on playing semantics.

I saw it.  It was the first time in 5 pages that you added the word "physical."  Thereafter you dropped the word.  So, one can only assume you found it unimportant or irrelevant.  Of course, after I continually pointed out to you that "provoked the confrontation" is irrelevant (even assuming you are correct with that notion) and you finally understood it...you re-added the word "physical."  It is mere proof that you misunderstood/misinterpreted the statute and now, after my questioning of your understanding, it is starting to sink in.  Now you understand the significance of the addition of that word.  I see that as progress. 

bottom line is if you follow and then chase(when they run) a complete stranger late at night, it is reasonable for them to believe their safety was in danger and i don't think it will be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that given the circumstances trayvon was justified in thinking he was under physical threat and justified in striking 1st.

Assuming your facts are correct...again assuming...now, continue reading the statute you posted.  Moreover, Trayvon's reasonable belief that his safety is in danger does not equate to Zimmerman actually and initially provoking the use of force against himself.   

this is if it is even accepted that zimmerman is telling the truth that trayvon hit him 1st...remember there is already recorded incidents of zimmerman changing his story and contradicting himself, so how much of his testimony is going to stand up after the prosecution have finished ripping him to shreds is anybody's guess.

You have yet to post any significant contradictions that would lead to the assumption that a jury will question Zimmerman's credibility.  No, stating one time that Trayvon may have been 19 and later stating he may have been 25ish...is not going to call his credibility into question.  No, stating Trayvon was running and later stating he looked to be skipping quickly....will not call into question Zimmerman's credibility.   

[Jack T. Cross]

posting a random pic off the internet is the resort of a desperate man

thanks for giving away your original account

do you want me to post your pic twinkles?

It's from a thread on getbig, and it took me less than two minutes to find.

[Jack T. Cross]

No.  That is not what I said.  Reread my comment.  Reanalyze it.  

Fair enough, then.  Please speak in terms of cause and effect, without using legal phrases.  And please remember we are talking about the ability of the jury to consider the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.

[Conker]

it will all boil down to the fight

no matter what happened before

if zimmerman can convince the jury he was on the ground getting the shit beat out of him

then he will be aquitted

i agree what happened during the fight is what really matters, but the eye witness accounts seem to be very sketchy  at best, i don't think any witness can even say who or how it started, so the circumstantial evidence leading up to the fight will also play a very big role and that evidence looks very bad for zimmerman.

of course if the jury believe that zimmerman was getting pounded and in fear for his life then he will walk, but i think that story may be hard to believe given the pair's injuries.

[SLYY]

Fair enough, then.  Please speak in terms of cause and effect, without using legal phrases.  And please remember we are talking about the ability of the jury to consider the words used by Zimmerman in the moments leading up to the unseen encounter.

A competent jury will link the key facts to the statutory elements.  Everything else is mere fluff.

[Jack T. Cross]

A competent jury will link the key facts to the statutory elements.  Everything else is mere fluff.

Please be specific, relative to the words Zimmerman used leading up to the unseen encounter.

[Conker]

I saw it.  It was the first time in 5 pages that you added the word "physical."  Thereafter you dropped the word.  So, one can only assume you found it unimportant or irrelevant.  Of course, after I continually pointed out to you that "provoked the confrontation" is irrelevant (even assuming you are correct with that notion) and you finally understood it...you re-added the word "physical."  It is mere proof that you misunderstood/misinterpreted the statute and now, after my questioning of your understanding, it is starting to sink in.  Now you understand the significance of the addition of that word.  I see that as progress.  


Assuming your facts are correct...again assuming...now, continue reading the statute you posted.  Moreover, Trayvon's reasonable belief that his safety is in danger does not equate to Zimmerman actually and initially provoking the use of force against himself.   


You have yet to post any significant contradictions that would lead to the assumption that a jury will question Zimmerman's credibility.  No, stating one time that Trayvon may have been 19 and later stating he may have been 25ish...is not going to call his credibility into question.  No, stating Trayvon was running and later stating he looked to be skipping quickly....will not call into question Zimmerman's credibility.  

so if your actions lead a reasonable person to think that there is a very good likelihood that you are going to cause them physical harm...you don't think this "equates" to provoking them to use force against you? lol

yes saying in the 911 transcript that he thought trayvon looked late teens and then saying under oath that he believed trayvon was a little bit younger than himself at 28, is a clear contradiction, it matters not the relevance of this detail, it suggests zimmerman is unreliable and as you know there are other contradictions and inconsistencies.

oh and can i ask why you made up that nonsense about the autopsy showing that trayvon's hands were covered in blood and his knuckles were damaged, when in reality it said he had a single small abrasion to one finger?...

tbh unless the quality of your posts improves drastically from the previous few, i doubt i will be responding any further as you seem like a simpleton.

[SLYY]

Please be specific, relative to the words Zimmerman used leading up to the unseen encounter.

In layman's terms, it is mere fluff.

[dr.chimps]

To recap: Fat boy got in over his head and had to shoot his way out.

[Jack T. Cross]

In layman's terms, it is mere fluff.

You're not being specific.