Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
That's not what your [blockquote] citation says, it's not what the case itself says, and your citation also undercuts your assertion that the police may not use deadly force against an unarmed felon.
Your credibility is being damaged by your carelessness.
Actually, it does matter how it began. Individuals have the right to defend themselves from assaults and batteries. There does not have to be contact made for there to be an assault or battery (Criminal definitions, not torts). People also aren't 'defenseless' on the ground, although a lot of people do not have good ground defense techniques.
Now, if some guy is following me around, I'm going to try and first avoid it. Martin did that, based on both Zimmerman's call and Martin's girlfriend's call. That's a smart policy. Zimmerman got out of his car and looked for Martin, for whatever reason. (avoiding the speculation). I find that piss poor judgment at best. What we don't know is how Zimmerman or Martin acted between this time and the shooting.
IF (speculation) Zimmerman was closing into close contact range (you can speak from a distance), I'm going to, based on known action, assume that he has bad intentions and not wait for him to throw the first punch, and I'm going to stop the threat by knocking him out (so he can no longer fight) and going home.
Soooo...if I think you or ANYONE is following me for a minute or two...from a distance...and no words are spoken/exchanged PERIOD...
...then you have broken the LAW and VIOLATED my CIVIL RIGHTS. Should we arrest you now? Maybe put a bounty on your head?
I'll bet that you are just too emotionally invested to honestly admit that none of these laws deprive Zimmerman of the right to self defense, but you know that you cannot come right out and say so because that makes you look too bad, so you try to change the subject and say that I don't understand these laws.
I do understand that none of these laws deprive Zimmerman of the right of self defense, and until you come right out and say that Zimmerman in some way has given up his right to self defense under these laws then you don't have a chance of even starting to make your point, whatever exactly that is.
What “stuff” am I “making up”? Be specific.
Did she speak at anytime under oath? If not, there's no perjury. There's good cross-examination material, but not perjury.
Do you even have any conception of what ‘reasonable doubt’ or ‘lack of evidence’ means?
“Who’s job, zimmerman was unemployed according to the news paper and had been for a long time.”
That is a flat out lie.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-job-20120323,0,7163107.story
Two sources have confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel that Zimmerman is, or until recently was, an employee at the Maitland office of Digital Risk, LLC, a mortgage risk-management firm.
The sources one is a former employee, the other currently works for the firm, which also has offices in Jacksonville, New York, Dallas and Denver spoke to the Sentinel on condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
Go read the opinion carefully, which I did. You cannot use deadly force against a FLEEING felon. How on earth can you show danger to your life from someone who is unarmed and running away from you.
'Reasonable' in the eyes of the jury. Not "reasonable" in the mind of the posters here, George Zimmerman, Bacrock Obama, or Jesse Jackson.
whodat.org is a true believer, first and foremost. And what he believes is that Zimmerman deserves to be seriously punished. That's the end of the story with him. All he cares about beyond that is looking good.
Plus he was going to school.
Ted Bundy was a very nice looking guy and I bet he was a precious kid.
Didn’t make him less of a psychotic killer though.
I meant post #406 of course, Post Toasties. I hope you understood that. NOT your post.
He went looking for trouble...
Actually, I can (against an unarmed felon), in certain circumstances; but your contention was that the police could not. The case you cited does not say that. It gives the conditions when the police MAY use deadly force against an unarmed fleeing felon. The conditions are NOT limited to situations where the police feel they are in imminent risk.
Anyway, none of that is relevant to the situation being discussed in the case. I was just remarking about your credibility, in light of your false assertions (and now, moving goalposts, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.