Encourage George Zimmerman (Florida self-defense shooting victim) to accept BTC

[triplehelix]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you? 

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

[Red Emerald]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you?  

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction  

I'm pretty sure that if this is the senario, based on the Stand your Ground law, you could shoot your purser for being chased. This means Travis Travon could have legally shot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

[Red Emerald]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travon who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you?  

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction  

I'm pretty sure that if this is the senario, based on the Stand your Ground law, you could shoot your purser for being chased. This means TravisTravon could have legally shot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure by that comment you are not a lawyer  

And your point is what exactly?


EDIT: stupid auto correct messed up Travon's name the first post and then my fingers messed it up the second time. Fixed it now.

[Red Emerald]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you?  

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction  

I'm pretty sure that if this is the senario, based on the Stand your Ground law, you could shoot your purser for being chased. This means Travis could have legally shot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure by that comment you are not a lawyer  

And your point is...

To be blunt you have no idea what you are talking about.  

A real response would be appreciated...

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Section 776.013 is about home defense and does not pertain to this case.

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.

Now if he really does have a broken nose (which seems doubtful at this point) then 776.041 2b does apply and it appears that Stand your Ground should apply to Zimmerman.  That part is for the courts to decide (if the case ever gets there considering that Stand your Ground grants you immunity...)



Also, I just found this.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWj40NWjRZ9NbPzFLwjATF21BG0A?docId=787a077e14304b86a063cf7b5f69f505  Still reading it, but apparently his Attorneys quit.

EDIT: Wow. that article has a lot of (useless) stats about race in it.  I wish we could get away from the race thing. It also wasn't as informative as I had hoped it would be

[BadBear]

Yeah, not donating to someone who stalked and killed an unarmed man. Self defense 

[Red Emerald]

Yeah, not donating to someone who stalked and killed an unarmed man. Self defense 

Dude. He had skittles and a hoodie.  That shits dangerous.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Yeah, not donating to someone who stalked and killed an unarmed man. Self defense 

Dude. He had skittles and a hoodie.  That shits dangerous.

Notice how Arizona Iced Tea is conveniently left off the list by mainstream media. My guess is that the symbolism won't fit.

Arizona = Border Patrol
Iced = I.C.E.
Tea = Tea Party

Whereas Skittles is...



What a pretty rainbow! Now only if somebody could push for a coalition...

~Bruno~

[John (John K.)]

The currency of drugs and now lynching! Hmmm. Are there bitcoin lynching services that might boom as a result of this publicity? If not, then I suggest you shelve your marketing idea.

For once, I actually agree with cunicula here. Unless we have actual-proved evidence and reason to believe either person were wrong, I don't think we should pick sides yet. This could hurt Bitcoin inadvertently if we chose wrongly.

[drakahn]

Why do we need to choose as a collective? if both had bitcoin donation addresses "we" could all just choose any or none

Personally i started off thinking this was a racist guy shooting some innocent kid, but then with all the BS in the news coming out (to be expected really, but not wanted) i really don't think anything of it, as posted in this thread, all we know is the bullshit the media has fed us, and that isn't enough to form an opinion on.

[triplehelix]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you? 

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction 

in which states do you feel following a pedestrian in a car, then chasing that someone through residential yards at a full run, doesn't create a situation where the person being followed/chased would be interpreted by the courts as being reasonably in fear for their life or in danger of bodily harm?  i can't think of a single district that would be sympathetic to a self defense plea by the aggressor where they followed, then chased, then accosted someone, specifically when the situation didn't occur on the aggressors property.

i see you asking others if they are lawyers, and seem to be offering your legal opinion as if it carries the weight of legal expertise.  are you a lawyer?  if yes, what area of law do you practice?

[Red Emerald]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you? 

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction 

in which states do you feel following a pedestrian in a car, then chasing that someone through residential yards at a full run, doesn't create a situation where the person being followed/chased would be interpreted by the courts as being reasonably in fear for their life or in danger of bodily harm?  i can't think of a single district that would be sympathetic to a self defense plea by the aggressor where they followed, then chased, then accosted someone, specifically when the situation didn't occur on the aggressors property.

San Francisco and it has happened to me.

Awesome level of detail on your story... Really enjoyed reading it... Which person got beaten and which person ended up dead in yours?

Anecdotal evidence of a possibly similar-ish story to yourself is not a law or legal precedent and would only be worth mentioning if you wrote more than a single sentence.

[triplehelix]

Below is from Wikipedia.  The reason why I post it and not other stuff on the page is that most everything in this post is well documented by audio.  So it is really not up to conjecture that Zimmerman followed Travan who was walking legally in his own neighborhood.  What would you do if some stranger followed you? 

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have the right to assault and jump someone from behind and break their bones for being followed, is that right?

i would say yes, if someone is following me in a car while i'm walking down the street, and i'm scared enough to run away, and that person chases after me through backyards, yes, physical violence against that person is justified.

I look forward to reading your assault and battery conviction 

in which states do you feel following a pedestrian in a car, then chasing that someone through residential yards at a full run, doesn't create a situation where the person being followed/chased would be interpreted by the courts as being reasonably in fear for their life or in danger of bodily harm?  i can't think of a single district that would be sympathetic to a self defense plea by the aggressor where they followed, then chased, then accosted someone, specifically when the situation didn't occur on the aggressors property.

San Francisco and it has happened to me.

woefully inadequate amount of detail if your case does indeed have any parallel to the above situation.  and a single fringe case does not a general interpretation make.

maybe you missed the question, but in regard to you asking others if they were lawyers and offering a general air of legal expertise, are you a lawyer?

[BillyAndTheCloneasaurus]

I am a shooting instructor and my main activity is training civilian shooters. I work mainly with short—barreled and long-barreled rifled weapons, less often with smoothbore. And more than once in my life I have seen people defending themselves go to jail. I advise anyone who is not sure of himself to buy any other means of defense. Buy online such means for self-defense, think about your future if you are not confident in your abilities.

I spent several years in prison because of self-defense

Are you aware that you just bumped a 10-year-old thread?