You have no sense of tact you freaking idiot! I hope you pay for such stupidity. Making light of a situation that clearly creates a broad line between the ignorant racists and the folks who recognize this as an injustice.

I hope something bad happens to you this week

Simple Google search.
2011 Florida Statutes 784.048

Definition 2 of stalking: "Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention."

If you can't see the faults that BOTH sides have in this case, then you have one of the worse cases of confirmation bias that I have ever seen, and that makes your analysis no more insightful than the jury.
"Tyranny of the majority".

GÇ£Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.GÇ¥ -- The Federalist No. 55

May I never find myself on the bench of judgment before a jury of my fellow Americans. I hate you guys.

Even if that broad generalization covered Gz, is the punishment for that misdmeanor a fine? Or is it getting your ass kicked?

I'm pretty sure no crime comes with a punishment of a beating.

However the crime of battering someone does give you the option of defending yourself.

You make up tm being under attack which never happened. Why don't you want to talk about that anymore?

substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.

The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.

As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.

I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path.

This man understands.

I am a man of rules. I do not let my emotions govern my movements as they've... led to poor choices of action in my past.

substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.

The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.

As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.

I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path.

he wasn't killed because he was dressed like a thug, jesus youv been watching liberal news, he was trying to kill Zimmerman for no reason and Zimmerman defended himself, all there is to it

This man understands.

*munch munch

Hilarious. Yes, let's fix race relations in the US in the DUST 514 FORUMS. You know, the enlightened place where changing the statistics of a piece of equipment in a video game erupts into a month long flame war.


Please don't feed the trolls. *cheesy music* "The more you know"

Ok, wait.

I assume you've all heard the recording of the phone conversation. So after being told not to follow the kid, he does so anyway, accosts him in a small space with limited room to escape, and Martin doesn't know if this guy is some serial killer or a pedophile or something.

I'm to understand that "Stand your Ground" only applies to the guy with the gun? What sense does that make? And would you really just stand there and hope the guy coming at you with a hostile manner doesn't want to hurt you or anything?

Your logic is pretty off there.

But all of that is beside the point.

Why is this even here? We have an Off Topic section for a reason.

Ok, wait.

I assume you've all heard the recording of the phone conversation. So after being told not to follow the kid, he does so anyway, accosts him in a small space with limited room to escape, and Martin doesn't know if this guy is some serial killer or a pedophile or something.

I'm to understand that "Stand your Ground" only applies to the guy with the gun? What sense does that make? And would you really just stand there and hope the guy coming at you with a hostile manner doesn't want to hurt you or anything?

Your logic is pretty off there.

But all of that is beside the point.

Why is this even here? We have an Off Topic section for a reason.

Aggressive manner is heresay. No evidence supports it.

Stand your ground law was not cited in this case. It was self defence laws. Standard ones that apply in nearly every state.

No you cannot attack someone who hasnt said anything threatening or attacked you. It's a crime.

The person who commited a CRIME died. No other crimes were committed.

GO!

Kindred spirits. Released from the military due to poor choices made regarding my fellow airmen. He broke no rules while i did. Kinda like tm.

Even if that broad generalization covered Gz, is the punishment for that misdmeanor a fine? Or is it getting your ass kicked?

I'm pretty sure no crime comes with a punishment of a beating.

However the crime of battering someone does give you the option of defending yourself.

You make up tm being under attack which never happened. Why don't you want to talk about that anymore?

Assault is a crime. Or did Gz scream for help and have a bloody face because he tripped and repeatedly slams his face in the ground and rub grass on his back?

Tm committed no crimes. Gosh darn that's hilarious.

I beat kid twice my size over his gloating about a fight I was in where he snuck up like a coward and slammed my head into a wall a week prior(I was fighting his little brother, nice and orderly, both sides agreed to orthodox boxing. Was winning by a bit, kid had a mean right.) It took 3 of his friends to pull me off of him.

I actually enjoyed that. I came home with a broken ankle, cracks in my forearms, shattered knuckles, busted ribs, and I loved that feeling. I've never forgotten it, I never want to feel that again.

He wouldn't admit to having gotten his ass beat by some scrawny little **** like me and I started it. So no consequences beyond being lectured by my parents about how monumentally stupid what I did was.

Edit: Evil me scares me that's basically the whole thing in a nutshell.

A stranger you don't know starts after you, 'not wanting you to get away' with something you haven't even done. I reckon "fight or flight" instincts would kick in for you too.
Assault only counts if you're the aggressor, which to public knowledge, Mr. Martin was NOT. Why don't you understand this?