A history of George Zimmerman on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 2

Under the Florida law, which is all that matters here...following someone is not a provoking act that nullfies Stand Your Ground.

A few weeks before the incident, Zimmerman called the police about somoene breaking into a house. The police didn't get there in time, and the suspect got away. That's why the comment about *******s always getting away.

I'll bet anyone on this board $100 that he's not convicted.

The story just proves that vigilantism doesn't work.

If he had control enough of the gun to use it as a weapon other than firing it, he had enough control of the situation to back away from it.
Overreaction.

Bold assumptions. And a gun is not meant to be used as a weapon "other than firing" it. If it were, cops would not be issued batons. It's not a hammer. It's a gun.

For the sake of argument though, evein if we assume he could have backed away from the situation, Florida law did not require him to do so.

I am not asking this to argue...it is a serious question.

Florida has the stand your ground law...what about Trayvon being able to stand his ground against someone who was following him? Or does only the person with the gun get to stand his ground?

I agree that getting a conviction against Zimmerman will be tough.

I also agree that it shouldn't have happened, and they should re-think their stand their ground laws.

About as well as waiting for an understaffed police dept with squad cars that have more miles than a taxi cab. I will protect myself Thank you.

Agree with jarhead. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Leslie: if Martin had stood his ground, this probably wouldn't have happened. The police were enroute, they could have resolved it. It would have just been two people standing there waiting for the cavalry.

Like I've said repeatedly, under Florida law, following someone is not a provoking act. And, it's possible for both people an in incident to be covered by stand your ground, depending on the order of events. Both Zimmerman and Martin had the right to be where they were. And the arguement could be made that both people were reasonable to think there was grave bodily harm imminent.

Is there precedence, where two people get into a fight, one kills the other and Stand your Ground is the defense? Stand Your Ground, I associate with Castle Law, and the only cases I've been able to find were Stand your ground was the defense was during Home Invasions or protecting property, not out strolling looking for a fight.

Where in FL Law does it say Stalking someone isn't provocation, If Zimmerman's actions provoked a response from Mr. Martin, that has to be taken into consideration, lets be real here, Had Mr. Zimmerman minded his own business, Mr. Martin would be alive today. Mr. Martin hadn't been in the process of committing a crime, and under the circumstances, (please correct me if I am wrong) not even a cop could of done more than said Hi, and certainly wouldn't of been following a citizen walking down the street calling him a ****ing punk and an *******.

From Florida's Stand Your Ground Statute:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Being followed does not equal being attacked. Being followed does not equal force

Later on in the statute:

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

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(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."

So, even if Zimmerman did provoke Martin, I would say it's reasonable to think that, having his head smashed into the concrete, could potentially cause grave bodily harm

but proceeding forward (following) is NOT standing your ground! Standing your ground is NOT RETREATING. There's a difference between following someone and not retreating from someone. BIG difference.

I have to believe that this will be the precedential case for so-called "stand your ground" laws.

I agree fully with "castle" laws, but as Pock says, those are dependent upon defending one's home/property, UPON said property.

"lets be real here, Had Mr. Zimmerman minded his own business, Mr. Martin would be alive today."

Bingo. If Zimmerman gets off scot-free on this, the floodgates are opened. Basically, anyone can kill any other person and claim it justified because they personally felt their life was in danger, without any evidence of that being the case in the eyes of another observer.

What happened to not shooting an unarmed man? Not bringing a gun to a knife fight? Fair fights? Because someone is a property owner, evidently their word is better than the kid walking down the street. So if he kills him, a jury should automatically take his word carte blanche?

Zimmerman, if not a murderer, is certainly a pus­sy. I find it funny that so-called "conservatives" defend him killing an unarmed person, when these are the same types who also decry the wussy-ass yuppies. If nothing else, Zimmerman is a yuppy with a gun who over-reacted.

"you kids today are nothing but punks, sissyfied. So quick to pick up a gun, afraid to take an ass-whippin.... You win some, you lose some. But you live, you live to fight another day."

Whether or not he is convicted will depend on if 12 people think it was reasonable that he was in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

And, if Martin went for Zimmerman's gun, which is far from implausible, he is no longer an unarmed man.

Hindsight is 20/20...we know now that Martin didn't have a weapon of his own. Zimmerman had no way of knowing this at the time.

I've been in situations at work, breaking up bar fights, and the thought certainly crosses my mind...does this guy have a knife, etc. We also have the added danger of plenty of potential weapons around, ie bottles, glasses, etc.

So, I'll ask you shifty...if you have someone on top of you, not knowing what kind of weapons, if any, they have, and they're hitting your head against the sidewalk...would you fear for your life?

In that scenario, it's not Stand Your Ground, but self-defense. IMO, it stopped being SYG the moment he followed just because he was suspicious. Key word: STAND, not PERSUE.