Trayvon Martin shooting

[PapaBearSLIM]

Originally Posted by promartinez

Following someone in my opinion and scaring the Sh*t out of someone at night is the aggressor.

Relevant. "Under Florida law, like most law, if you are the first aggressor in a confrontation, you forfeit the right to self-defense.

Lawyers should use the "he was following me theory".
Following to me has intention.

Sounds like you're saying that Martin had a right to stand his ground.

I don't know all the facts in this case so I'm still reserving judment. But I've always thought that both parties were protected by the same stand your ground law. Now let the justice system decide who was the initial aggressor and what was considered that act of aggression that envoked fear in the other party.

[promartinez]

Originally Posted by PapaBearSLIM

Sounds like you're saying that Martin had a right to stand his ground.

I don't know all the facts in this case so I'm still reserving judment. But I've always thought that both parties were protected by the same stand your ground law. Now let the justice system decide who was the initial aggressor and what was considered that act of aggression that envoked fear in the other party.

Yep.
I said something to the sort many posts ago.
If someone was following me I would turn around and make sure I didn't get F'd up.
I hope everyone else out there would do the same also to be safe.
Someone creeping or following has some kind of intentions.

[promartinez]

I just thought of this...

Zimmerman has a Bald Head (no hair).

No Choke or Hair Grabbing reported!

He got knocked down with 1 punch.

Zimmerman claims his head was bounced off the ground and pounded on the sidewalk. (let alone them falling in the grass, another part of the story).
Hence the Cut on the back of his head.

All wrestlers know when you are mounted the only way to be held down and your head banged on the ground is by CHOKE Around the neck Or HAIR!

Did Martin Use Zimmermans Nostrils, Ear Holes, or Stick His hand In His Mouth To Bang his Head?

[PapaBearSLIM]

Originally Posted by promartinez

I just thought of this...

Zimmerman has a Bald Head (no hair).

No Choke or Hair Grabbing reported!

He got knocked down with 1 punch.

Zimmerman claims his head was bounced off the ground and pounded on the sidewalk. (let alone them falling in the grass, another part of the story).
Hence the Cut on the back of his head.

All wrestlers know when you are mounted the only way to be held down and your head banged on the ground is by CHOKE Around the neck Or HAIR!

Did Martin Use Zimmermans Nostrils, Ear Holes, or Stick His hand In His Mouth To Bang his Head?

He could have used either of those, or he simply could have used his head. When's the last time you need to use either of those methods to move a melon or a ball?

[promartinez]

Originally Posted by PapaBearSLIM

He could have used either of those, or he simply could have used his head. When's the last time you need to use either of those methods to move a melon or a ball?

Funny...

Grab someones head that doesn't want it banged against a sidewalk or (grass when they fell over).

[restling]

Having never been in a fist fight in my life, and not ever planning too. I don't understand some of the things in the latest article. It makes it sound that at some point you relinquish the right to fully defend yourself.

Is it saying that if you start a fight and even if it begins as a fist fight, and the second guy really gets an advantage and begins to hit you with tremendous force, that you aren't allowed to defend yourself with life saving measures. Just because you started the fight? Does that mean you could get beaten to death, and if your only means was to use a gun, you would then be convicted because you started the fight?

[PapaBearSLIM]

Originally Posted by restling

Having never been in a fist fight in my life, and not ever planning too. I don't understand some of the things in the latest article. It makes it sound that at some point you relinquish the right to fully defend yourself.

Is it saying that if you start a fight and even if it begins as a fist fight, and the second guy really gets an advantage and begins to hit you with tremendous force, that you aren't allowed to defend yourself with life saving measures. Just because you started the fight? Does that mean you could get beaten to death, and if your only means was to use a gun, you would then be convicted because you started the fight?

It is human nature to preserve yourself. If I break into your home and start smacking you around, then you get the best of me and I start fearing for my life I would be expected to defend myself to the death if need be. But If I kill you in the process should I not be charged with murder?

[restling]

Originally Posted by PapaBearSLIM

It is human nature to preserve yourself. If I break into your home and start smacking you around, then you get the best of me and I start fearing for my life I would be expected to defend myself to the death if need be. But If I kill you in the process should I not be charged with murder?

I guess in that simple situation i wouldn't see murder as the charge. If I had turned the corner on the fight, but continued to beat you, and then grabbed the candlestick from the library, and was about to finish you off. How could you be charged with murder if you pulled out a gun? Or maybe I didn't use a candlestick, but had you put your teeth on the curb? I see many gray areas in these situations, and i don't understand the law or the article that was posted.

[restling]

Originally Posted by PapaBearSLIM

It is human nature to preserve yourself. If I break into your home and start smacking you around, then you get the best of me and I start fearing for my life I would be expected to defend myself to the death if need be. But If I kill you in the process should I not be charged with murder?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/d...icle-1.1080161

According to this article, you would not be charged with murder.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

RELATED: TRAYVON'S DEATH WAS 'AVOIDABLE,' POLICE REPORT SAYS

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)