And I will. Still doesn't change the fact that a law that allows someone to provoke someone else into getting themselves killed isn't a good law. I'm reminded of a 1960s British spy film that I once saw:

"I can't kill a man in cold blood."
"Well, if it will satisfy your conscience, provoke him."

Any of us are entitled to have an opinion...and I realize you're being tongue-in-cheek about it anyway (even without the benefit of a smiley!)

The only issue I have is those who choose to adopt their opinion as fact and then argue about it, holding it tenaciously as though it were fact.

Such people are exactly the ones you don't want on a jury, either.

Sorry. My mistake.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I wonder why the FL law does not put the burden on the defendant, using the stand your ground defense, to prove, by a preponderance, that he was the victim of an unprovoked assault. Or does it?

Ask the NRA. They were the main backer of the law.

My understanding is that the FL legislature was trying to allow people to defend them selves in public. The fact was they do not seem to have the ability to write laws that are strict in scope and clear in their intent.

By all accounts that I have read, they really screwed up with this law.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

"(3) 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. "

There may be something here with the "person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" part. Generally speaking, the sort of speach/actions that would be required to provoke someone into attacking would also count as verbal/physical assault. And as such, would be illegal. Thereby removing the protection that the Stand Your Ground law is meant to provide.

I'm not saying it is perfect, just that there seems to be room enough for lawyers to navigate.

MV

S'funny, the word I'm hearing is that cops were not too impressed with Zimmerman's comportment, saying he could have easily avoided the confrontation and that there was no evidence that Martin was engaged in criminal activity.

Dude will get 5 to 10 years.

As for Z's size, in the jailhouse vid, the guy looks like a dork. His manner of walking is weak. I suspect that Martin was easily the superior fighter. Zimmerman needed a gun because he's a wuss.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

You're talking about Martin here, right? He was the guy who was walking home, innocent of any criminal activity, stalked by a gun toting vigilante who, according the girlfriend on the phone, approached Martin in a hostile manner and demanded to know what he was doing.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I wasn't specifically referring to this case, but rather the Stand Your Ground laws in general. I wasn't there in this particular case, and don't have enough information to make an argument one way or the other. As to the law, let's create a hypothetical scenario between two individuals, we'll call them "A" and "B".

"A" is sitting at a table in the park, eating a candy bar and watching some ducks waddle about.

Completely legal and innocent activities.

"B" comes walking through the park with a dog on a leash. Upon seeing the ducks, both the dog and "B" decide that it would be fun to run after the ducks and cause them to fly away, and do so.

While these activities may be in violation of fish and game statutes or local ordinances, that's not the issue here. Basically, "B" did nothing to or towards "A".

"A" is upset that his peaceful duck watching afternoon has been disturbed, and proceeds to yell at "B", including vulgar language, racial slurs, and non-specific threats (ie; "I oughta come over there...").

"B" initially shrugs it off and makes light of it all with the intent of letting it pass. However "A" continues to yell and begins to challenge "B", something along the lines of "Leave the ducks alone and pick on someone your own size". This goes on for 3-5 minutes, until "B", reacting to "A"'s "fighting words" (interesting legal concept, look it up), decides to advance upon "A" and enter a physical fight.

Now is where it gets interesting. Does "A" have the right to defend himself from "B"? Or were his actions prior to this point enough to be considered verbal assault? If so, "A" would no longer have been involved in a legal activity, and hence, the Stand Your Ground law, as quoted above, would not apply.

It gets tricky.

MV

That makes for interesting, if murky law. And why we need lawyers ( damit!)

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

my understanding is a $5.00/hour 911 operator told Z to back off, not a police officer. Had Z merely dialed the police and given a report and not pursued M, he could be at Wendy's tonight, enjoying a single with cheese rather than being locked up. Passion overrode logic, pure and simple.

No need to criticize the 911 operators or demean them for their low pay.

$5/hour? I doubt that.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

we don't need lawyers; they have created an artificial environment making everyone believe that they are needed. they are the one's writing the murky confusing so-called laws (they are really policies written by politicians who just also happen to be LAWYERS).

notice the words written on a Police cruiser. It says, "Police" not "Law Enforcement".

The Police enforce Policies written by Policy makers AKA state and federal legislators. Policies are in a constant state of flux or change. Don't like today's policies? Wait around and they will change them again and again and again and again. That way, they keep you off center and off balance which appears to be their goal.

Confusion; it's what's for dinner.

I'm tired of hearing people say that the police ordered Z to do so and so when in reality, it was a 911 operator.

I guess I've been watching to many episodes on court TV where the total and complete idiocy of the 911 operator was beyond astounding. I am not saying that everyone of them is an idiot, but tune in to Court TV and listen to some of the calls. scary. Where do they get some of these people? How are they trained? Their ineptness in handing an emergency call has absolutely got to place people's lives in danger.

I know one thing for sure; if I'm facing a life and death emergency, I'll figure out another option. If I need an ambulance, I will phone the ambulance service DIRECTLY.