Zimmerman gets a stand-your-ground hearing

[HeinBallz]

OK Unruly, let me get this straight.  You're saying TM knew GZ was following him, asked GZ to stop following him, GZ didn't, so TM jumped GZ.  At this point GZ has the right to pull out his gun and shoot TM because he is being attacked.  TM stood his ground against a man following him because he felt threatened, but because TM stood his ground with his fists, that gives GZ the right to stand his ground with a gun?

If it's within your legal rights to provoke someone to protect themselves (while knowing you are carrying a gun) and then shoot them because of their reaction to you stalking them, then the law is mumped up.

This is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Your natural response to someone following you is "kick their ass"?  That's mumped up.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[Rage Against the McKee]

OK Unruly, let me get this straight.  You're saying TM knew GZ was following him, asked GZ to stop following him, GZ didn't, so TM jumped GZ.  At this point GZ has the right to pull out his gun and shoot TM because he is being attacked.  TM stood his ground against a man following him because he felt threatened, but because TM stood his ground with his fists, that gives GZ the right to stand his ground with a gun?

If it's within your legal rights to provoke someone to protect themselves (while knowing you are carrying a gun) and then shoot them because of their reaction to you stalking them, then the law is mumped up.

This is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Your natural response to someone following you is "kick their ass"?  That's mumped up.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I would expect that to be that natural response of anybody I chased home and then tried to apprehend.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

OK Unruly, let me get this straight.  You're saying TM knew GZ was following him, asked GZ to stop following him, GZ didn't, so TM jumped GZ.  At this point GZ has the right to pull out his gun and shoot TM because he is being attacked.  TM stood his ground against a man following him because he felt threatened, but because TM stood his ground with his fists, that gives GZ the right to stand his ground with a gun?

If it's within your legal rights to provoke someone to protect themselves (while knowing you are carrying a gun) and then shoot them because of their reaction to you stalking them, then the law is mumped up.

This is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Your natural response to someone following you is "kick their ass"?  That's mumped up.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I would expect that to be that natural response of anybody I chased home and then tried to apprehend.

I haven't heard this before. Link?

[TheHamburglar]

OK Unruly, let me get this straight.  You're saying TM knew GZ was following him, asked GZ to stop following him, GZ didn't, so TM jumped GZ.  At this point GZ has the right to pull out his gun and shoot TM because he is being attacked.  TM stood his ground against a man following him because he felt threatened, but because TM stood his ground with his fists, that gives GZ the right to stand his ground with a gun?

If it's within your legal rights to provoke someone to protect themselves (while knowing you are carrying a gun) and then shoot them because of their reaction to you stalking them, then the law is mumped up.

This is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Your natural response to someone following you is "kick their ass"?  That's mumped up.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

If someone is following me at night, I asked them to stop following me, and they kept following me...yes. What's more mumped up is deciding that it's a better outcome to shoot a kid in the chest rather than take a few more punches/kicks. 

You're telling me that if someone is following you at night, you start running, then they continue to follow you to the point that they catch up to you after you've been running, you aren't going to defend yourself?  I start running, the person following me keeps up to the point that they catch up, I'm going to try to kick their ass when they get to me.  I don't really see how thats "mumped up".

[HeinBallz]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

[HeinBallz]

No wonder everyone is so anti-gun.  If you're willing to kick someone's ass for following you, you likely don't trust yourself to be carrying a gun and don't trust anyone else.   Sheesh... talk about paranoia.

[TheHamburglar]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.

Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified.  Jesus rough ridin' christ.

[Emo EMAW]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Well you're supposed to stop kicking their ass once you have the upper hand, like when he's on his back and crying like a girl and bleeding from his head.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Well you're supposed to stop kicking their ass once you have the upper hand, like when he's on his back and crying like a girl and bleeding from his head.

That's probably why he got shot. If TM had just assumed GZ had a gun like Heinballz suggested, he could have just beaten him to death and then claimed self defense. It's hard to grab your gun and shoot somebody while you are trying to protect your face from vicious blows.

[HeinBallz]

So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.

Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified.  Jesus rough ridin' christ.

Fighting back from what?  Defending from what?  Here's where the paranoia part comes in.  FOLLOWING IS NOT ASSAULTING.  I don't know how to make it more clear than that.  If someone is following you, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT THEM. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.

Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified.  Jesus rough ridin' christ.

Fighting back from what?  Defending from what?  Here's where the paranoia part comes in.  FOLLOWING IS NOT ASSAULTING.  I don't know how to make it more clear than that.  If someone is following you, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT THEM.

If some stranger is walking around on my property in the middle of a rainy night, I definitely have the right to judge him, especially if he is armed.

[TheHamburglar]

So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.

Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified.  Jesus rough ridin' christ.

Fighting back from what?  Defending from what?  Here's where the paranoia part comes in.  FOLLOWING IS NOT ASSAULTING.  I don't know how to make it more clear than that.  If someone is following you, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT THEM.

Yet GZ has the right to chase TM through the dark streets, to the point that TM is running and GZ is keeping up, then kill him when TM assaults him for chasing him...tell me what part of this law structure isn't mumped up.  Also, you said that since GZ was chasing TM, TM should have assumed that GZ had a gun.  So going even further down how you are trying to justify this, TM shouldn't have the right to assult a man chasing him with a gun at night, but when the person chasing with the gun gets assulted, they have the right to kill the person they were chasing.   

Also, I like how you keep falsing using the term "following" instead of "chasing", which is exactly was GZ did even after the 911 dispatcher told him to stop. 

[HeinBallz]

If some stranger is walking around on my property in the middle of a rainy night, I definitely have the right to judge him, especially if he is armed.

Well now you're just throwing hypothetical situations out there to make my argument void. 

Hey everyone!  Heinballs says that if a dude wearing a jason mask and carrying a big machete is following you in your house, you can't kick his ass until he tries to kill you.   What a douchbag, amirite?

FTR, what you're doing is social engineering.

[Rage Against the McKee]

OK Unruly, let me get this straight.  You're saying TM knew GZ was following him, asked GZ to stop following him, GZ didn't, so TM jumped GZ.  At this point GZ has the right to pull out his gun and shoot TM because he is being attacked.  TM stood his ground against a man following him because he felt threatened, but because TM stood his ground with his fists, that gives GZ the right to stand his ground with a gun?

If it's within your legal rights to provoke someone to protect themselves (while knowing you are carrying a gun) and then shoot them because of their reaction to you stalking them, then the law is mumped up.

This is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Your natural response to someone following you is "kick their ass"?  That's mumped up.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I would expect that to be that natural response of anybody I chased home and then tried to apprehend.

I haven't heard this before. Link?

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-12/politics/31330086_1_affidavit-martin-case-police-dispatcher

[Emo EMAW]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Well you're supposed to stop kicking their ass once you have the upper hand, like when he's on his back and crying like a girl and bleeding from his head.

That's probably why he got shot. If TM had just assumed GZ had a gun like Heinballz suggested, he could have just beaten him to death and then claimed self defense. It's hard to grab your gun and shoot somebody while you are trying to protect your face from vicious blows.

Basically, GZ is innocent according to the law.  The law might be mumped up, though.  Honestly the most interesting stories are when those little weird circumstances add up and, under those circumstances, the law doesn't make sense.  So we focus on the 1% of the time the law doesn't work.  Let's not knee-jerk here people.

[HeinBallz]

So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.

Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified.  Jesus rough ridin' christ.

Fighting back from what?  Defending from what?  Here's where the paranoia part comes in.  FOLLOWING IS NOT ASSAULTING.  I don't know how to make it more clear than that.  If someone is following you, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT THEM.

Yet GZ has the right to chase TM through the dark streets, to the point that TM is running and GZ is keeping up, then kill him when TM assaults him for chasing him...tell me what part of this law structure isn't mumped up.  Also, you said that since GZ was chasing TM, TM should have assumed that GZ had a gun.  So going even further down how you are trying to justify this, TM shouldn't have the right to assult a man chasing him with a gun at night, but when the person chasing with the gun gets assulted, they have the right to kill the person they were chasing.   

Also, I like how you keep falsing using the term "following" instead of "chasing", which is exactly was GZ did even after the 911 dispatcher told him to stop.

No, he doesn't have the right to chase him or follow him.  But following OR chasing does not equate to assaulting.  One is illegal, the other is not.  GZ is a douchbag - no one is debating that.  TM is also a douchbag - you are disputing this.

[HeinBallz]

Following.   Not assaulting.  As soon as he lays hands on you, by all means kick his ass.  But following?  Call the damn cops or a friend or get somewhere safe.  But I have to assume that anyone following me likely has a gun and attacking them is going to get me shot - and justifiably so.


Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Well you're supposed to stop kicking their ass once you have the upper hand, like when he's on his back and crying like a girl and bleeding from his head.

That's probably why he got shot. If TM had just assumed GZ had a gun like Heinballz suggested, he could have just beaten him to death and then claimed self defense. It's hard to grab your gun and shoot somebody while you are trying to protect your face from vicious blows.

Basically, GZ is innocent according to the law.  The law might be mumped up, though.  Honestly the most interesting stories are when those little weird circumstances add up and, under those circumstances, the law doesn't make sense.  So we focus on the 1% of the time the law doesn't work. Let's not knee-jerk here people.

 

Not that I think the law is broken.  GZ is guilty of stalking at the very least.

[TheHamburglar]

No, he doesn't have the right to chase him or follow him.  But following OR chasing does not equate to assaulting.  One is illegal, the other is not.  GZ is a douchbag - no one is debating that.  TM is also a douchbag - you are disputing this.

How is someone attacking a person chasing them through their neighboorhood on a dark, rainy night a douchebag?  As you said earlier, TM should have tried to get to a safe place...that's exactly what he rough ridin' did when he started running but GZ caught up to him.  But TM attacking GZ after GZ caught up to him after a running foot chase...that makes him a douchebag?

Also, I'm pretty sure if I came to your neighboorhood and chased you around in the dark for awhile, you would claim I was breaking some sort of law. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

If some stranger is walking around on my property in the middle of a rainy night, I definitely have the right to judge him, especially if he is armed.

Well now you're just throwing hypothetical situations out there to make my argument void. 

Hey everyone!  Heinballs says that if a dude wearing a jason mask and carrying a big machete is following you in your house, you can't kick his ass until he tries to kill you.   What a douchbag, amirite?

FTR, what you're doing is social engineering.

1. Trayvon did not own the property, but he did live there.

2. It was raining.

Had Trayvon killed GZ, he would have a self defense claim that would stand up under duty to flee laws, not to mention stand your ground.

[Emo EMAW]

If some stranger is walking around on my property in the middle of a rainy night, I definitely have the right to judge him, especially if he is armed.

Well now you're just throwing hypothetical situations out there to make my argument void. 

Hey everyone!  Heinballs says that if a dude wearing a jason mask and carrying a big machete is following you in your house, you can't kick his ass until he tries to kill you.   What a douchbag, amirite?

FTR, what you're doing is social engineering.

1. Trayvon did not own the property, but he did live there.

2. It was raining.

Had Trayvon killed GZ, he would have a self defense claim that would stand up under duty to flee laws, not to mention stand your ground.

I'm not so sure.  It takes a lot longer to kill a person by beating them to death than by shooting.  One could argue (and these arguments have been made in Florida in stand-your-ground hearings before) that it would be excessive.

Here's one thing though, wouldn't GZ not qualify for stand-your-ground if the was breaking the law at the time, ala stalking or trespassing?

[TheHamburglar]

Here's one thing though, wouldn't GZ not qualify for stand-your-ground if the was breaking the law at the time, ala stalking or trespassing?

IF GZ gets off on the stand-your-ground law, this is where the mumped-up law structure I've been talking about this whole time comes into play.  If the incident is started by you breaking the law, then you shouldn't qualify for stand-your-ground.  If that's not in the law, the law is mumped up.  If it is in the law, GZ shouldn't get off and this whole discussion is moot. 

[HeinBallz]

I didn't realize a trial had taken place where all of these details & personal accounts had been officially brought to light.  All I’ve heard are accounts where TM was walking around a gated community… not his front yard.  I also heard that GZ was following him in his car.   See what I mean when I made this statement:

Who was attacked by who would be the indicator of who I would side with obviously... There's just so many conflicting stories out there, I don't know what to believe.

[TheHamburglar]

I didn't realize a trial had taken place where all of these details & personal accounts had been officially brought to light.  All I’ve heard are accounts where TM was walking around a gated community… not his front yard.  I also heard that GZ was following him in his car.   See what I mean when I made this statement:

Who was attacked by who would be the indicator of who I would side with obviously... There's just so many conflicting stories out there, I don't know what to believe.

Yet you've already labeled TM a douchebag and have spent this entire thread defending GZ's right to shoot TM if TM attacked GZ after GZ chased him through the neighboorhood on a dark, rainy night...and started another thread about gun control laws.

If that's all you've heard, you obviously haven't heard the 911 call where GZ told the dispatcher that TM was running away from him and the dispatcher told him to wait for police...yet somehow they crossed paths again later. 

[Emo EMAW]

I didn't realize a trial had taken place where all of these details & personal accounts had been officially brought to light.  All I’ve heard are accounts where TM was walking around a gated community… not his front yard.  I also heard that GZ was following him in his car.   See what I mean when I made this statement:

Who was attacked by who would be the indicator of who I would side with obviously... There's just so many conflicting stories out there, I don't know what to believe.

As far as I'm concerned a 911 dispatcher isn't a rough ridin' cop and I don't have to do what they say, or at least failing to do what they say isn't obstruction.

Yet you've already labeled TM a douchebag and have spent this entire thread defending GZ's right to shoot TM if TM attacked GZ after GZ chased him through the neighboorhood on a dark, rainy night...and started another thread about gun control laws.

If that's all you've heard, you obviously haven't heard the 911 call where GZ told the dispatcher that TM was running away from him and the dispatcher told him to wait for police...yet somehow they crossed paths again later.

[TheHamburglar]

As far as I'm concerned a 911 dispatcher isn't a rough ridin' cop and I don't have to do what they say, or at least failing to do what they say isn't obstruction.

So because the 911 dispatcher isn't a cop, that makes it OK for GZ to continue to chase TM through the neighboorhood eventhought GZ knows the cops are on their way?  If you aren't going to wait for the cops to show up to do their job, why the even call 911 in the first place?