Stand Your Ground Laws
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
lol. You might not and I know Colply wouldn't but Zimmerman did.
lol again. Mumble mumble.
Searching out targets???
The murder rate among licensed concealed carry civilians in the USA is ONE TENTH that of the population at large in the USA, and one third that of the Canadian population.
Kinda blows THAT idea out of the water, doesn't it??
I was referring to the riots. The US has a huge race problem in my opinion.
The Gun that he carried gave him the idea of protection to follow. As we have seen from testimony - he could not fight.
If he had waited this would not have happened.
If he did not have a gun he would not have followed.
Blows that out of the water. The gun made him, brave, no gave him a false sense bravery. A ffn idiot is what he is.
Not at all.
What keeps getting missed here is that Zimmerman was RIGHT about Trayvon...........
Martin was a punk, and a violent one.
You are correct in one sense only........GZ may have been emboldened because he was carrying.......to which I ask
SO WHAT???
"...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."[ Thomas Jefferson
So What. No crime being committed.
So What. No need to wait for the Police.
So What. A man is dead.
So What?
You, like all the other TM supporters, are making assumptions that fly in the face of the facts.
Zimmerman did not confront Martin, Martin returned to confront Zimmerman.
It is too bad Martin is dead, and I mean that sincerely.....but he brought it upon himself.
Vigilantism is lawful? Interesting.
What was Zimmerman doing then if he wasn't looking for "suspicious" people? Paddling his pickle to the tune of I Touch Myself by the Divinyls? Reading Dostoyevski? Playing poker with his iPhone?
Ah, no, it doesn't.
Looking at houses and wandering home while looking high or drunk is just that. Except for being intoxicated in a public place (a misdemeanor), Martin wasn't even causing mischief (also a misdemeanor). But how would Zimmerman know Martin's history at the time? Is Zimmerman a clairvoyant?
I agree but how would Zimmerman know about Martin's past at the time?
Yeah, no-one ever felt the false courage because of packing and shot someone unnecessarily.
Not this time. He likely would have went home and got high(er) if Zimmerman had not been sitting in his truck and playing wannabe neighborhood hero. He had no official capacity to do that.
If it were me, I'd have told him to gfh and went about my business. If he approached me, I'd have stayed there and called his bluff. Which is what this thread is about; standing your ground.
Anyway, in some cases, I think standing your ground is pretty good advice. Not so in other cases. I like what T-bones said about standing your ground IF there's no reasonable escape.
Last edited:
Good tactic. If you can't find a specific crime, use a very broad, general term that is distasteful, and pretend it's a crime.
No, "vigilantism" isn't unlawful. Neither is racism.
The Florida Code is on-line. You can search it for crimes Zimmerman committed. Until you find one, don't bother me with made-up crap, mmm-kay?
Since the stand your ground law was enacted in"05 violent crime has been reduced by 23%. Blacks use the stand your ground law at double the rate (30%) of their percentage (15%) of the Florida population. It's a terrible law because it benefits dark-skinned people.
Do you know that for sure? Or do all the males in your world religiously subscribe to the belief that if you appeal to an assailant's good human nature they will be spared?
No, at worst George Zimmerman could have come home dead instead, because while we're playing the "what if" game, Trayvon Martin may well have been armed, or had bettered Zimmerman in fisticuffs, gotten him on the ground and kept beating him until he stopped breathing.
One would assume it was within Martin's reach to choose not to escalate the situation.
I'm not sure would constitute an "above average judgement call" in your eyes. Would that have been not to go on patrol as a neighbourhood watch volunteer? Or, to use a term I've heard from retired LEO's, just said " FIDO", or F*** it, drive on? Or would it be the decision to use deadly force?
It's nice to be able to armchair quarterback and say "why didn't he just duke it out?". Which very few people, other than thugs and those who religiously practice at the gym are prepared to do competently, and it would be nice to maintain a 20 year old body for life.
Assuming George Zimmerman has been trained in the use of firearms for defense, the time between recognition of a threat and to react to it can be the blink of an eye, the luxury of time to make a judgment call at that point is long past.
This is not about whether he was guilty or innocent. He was found Innocent. I agree with the ruling.
This is about the dumbass being a so called real man with a gun and he should have waited.
There was no need to follow. None, doing so was the first step in the chain. He made that decision as he had a gun. It is clear he cannot handle himself without a gun.
I am sure you have met that type before.
A tree stump is considered a sharp object to them.
He was not part of Neighborhood Watch.
What was he doing?
Out for a stroll does not cut the mustard.
He was going about his lawful occasions. That's a presumption. I encourage you to rebut that presumption, but with the law, not your personal feelings about what people should and should not do.
I knew what the law was.
But Zimmermans actions did precipitate the fatality.
What illegal activity did Martin commit prior to Zimmerman following him? None that I am aware of.
Zimmerman was hunting - looking for illegal activities, call it what you will. But it is all legal as he did not initiate the assault.
The gun gave him a set of cojones.
He destroyed 2 families and many people’s lives.
Last edited:
Based on the prior history of break-ins and whatnot, even if George was just driving to the store (as he was) and he saw 'someone suspicious', in the dark and rainy night, and being an self-appointed cowboy or not, he see's this person, (race, age, musical taste or stoner is not important, nor is it mentioned) and decided to act. After that came a series of crappy decisions by both these dudes.
Zim wasn't 'hunting'...he's running an errand to Target or something...driving there...he just happened to be the person that noticed the 'suspicious person' (who had taken the short cut) and it all went from there.
Zim wasn't 'hunting'...he's running an errand to Target or something...driving there...he just happened to be the person that noticed the 'suspicious person' (who had taken the short cut) and it all went from there.
