"If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon."

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, it appears Zimmerman created a confrontation and Martin initiated the violence in response.  Get with the script, man!

Guess I better print out a new script....

[Teatownclown]

No, it appears Zimmerman created a confrontation and Martin initiated the violence in response.  Get with the script, man!

Semantics... "created a confrontation"= initiating an act of violence.... the script you read from is twisted.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Semantics... "created a confrontation"= initiating an act of violence.... the script you read from is twisted.

In the context of the Florida concealed carry law requirements, which he was trained in, and his actions after the point of leaving his car, that is exactly what he did - initiate an act of violence (Zimmerman).  By definition.

[Conan71]

In the context of the Florida concealed carry law requirements, which he was trained in, and his actions after the point of leaving his car, that is exactly what he did - initiate an act of violence (Zimmerman).  By definition.

By definition, following someone is not an act of violence.  Striking someone is an act of violence.  No one, as of yet, as come forward to show that Zimmerman landed the first punch. 

Asking someone what they think they are doing skulking around your neighborhood doesn't even rise to the level of assault.  If Zimmerman said: "Get the love out of here or I'll kill you" that would rise to the level of assault, which still is not an act of violence as defined by law but would give Martin a reason to fear for his life. 

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

Elements

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Aggravated Assault

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered an aggravated assault.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

[nathanm]

No, it appears Zimmerman created a confrontation and Martin initiated the violence in response.

This is completely irrelevant. Whatever protection Zimmerman may have had under the law went away as soon as the fight ended. Martin's body was not found where the fight took place.

[Conan71]

This is completely irrelevant. Whatever protection Zimmerman may have had under the law went away as soon as the fight ended. Martin's body was not found where the fight took place.

Incorrect, incorrect, and ??.

It's hardly irrelevant.  This is precisely what the jury must consider as to whether or not he will be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Sounds like the fight ended with a gunshot and beyond that point, Zimmerman still has certain civil rights and protections even if he acted with 100% malice aforethought.  A jury will decide if he acted lawfully in shooting Martin.  Not you or I.

Where you heard the body was moved?  That's a new revelation on me.

[patric]

Incorrect, incorrect, and ??.

It's hardly irrelevant.  This is precisely what the jury must consider as to whether or not he will be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Sounds like the fight ended with a gunshot and beyond that point, Zimmerman still has certain civil rights and protections even if he acted with 100% malice aforethought.  A jury will decide if he acted lawfully in shooting Martin.  Not you or I.

Where you heard the body was moved?  That's a new revelation on me.

May be a new strategy since the sidewalk Zimmerman allegedly was being beaten into was no where near the body.

[nathanm]

Where you heard the body was moved?  That's a new revelation on me.

The body wasn't moved. The shooting didn't take place where the fight did. You should listen to the witness testimony that indicates that the fight and the shooting did not take place at the same location. Based on the best public evidence so far, the fight took place at the 'T' in the linked map. The body of Trayvon Martin was found several doors to the south, again, according to witnesses.

http://g.co/maps/5mqnz

Florida law is pretty clear. If your assailant has disengaged and is leaving the area, you can't shoot them and claim self defense under the law. A jury can still call it self defense if they feel like it, obviously, but under Florida law it doesn't appear to be. Zimmerman's defenders typically only quote the section most beneficial to him. They leave out the rest that outlines the requirement to allow your attacker to de-escalate if they request it, among other things.

[Conan71]

The body wasn't moved. The shooting didn't take place where the fight did. You should listen to the witness testimony that indicates that the fight and the shooting did not take place at the same location. Based on the best public evidence so far, the fight took place at the 'T' in the linked map. The body of Trayvon Martin was found several doors to the south, again, according to witnesses.

http://g.co/maps/5mqnz

Florida law is pretty clear. If your assailant has disengaged and is leaving the area, you can't shoot them and claim self defense under the law. A jury can still call it self defense if they feel like it, obviously, but under Florida law it doesn't appear to be. Zimmerman's defenders typically only quote the section most beneficial to him. They leave out the rest that outlines the requirement to allow your attacker to de-escalate if they request it, among other things.

What distance are they claiming Martin was from Zimmerman when he was shot?

[nathanm]

What distance are they claiming Martin was from Zimmerman when he was shot?

I'm not making any claim as to Zimmerman's location when he shot, only that the fight and the shooting took place a hundred feet or more apart. The witness who saw them on the ground actually saw them. The ladies who heard the cry for help and the shooting were merely earwitnesses. They did not hear any scuffle before the shooting, only a cry for help immediately followed by a shot. Martin was found dead behind their condo and their window was open.

[TulsaRufnex]

Making a small, and apparently gawd awful joke about Barry. Remember this?

Yawn.... at it again I see.... start at 13:13 until 13:50... keep going if you dare....

I'm reminded again of why I support and continue to support this guy^^^.... over the guy who was "born on 3rd base but thinks he hit a home run"... whose flip-flops would make John Kerry blush... go figure...
http://www.redstate.com/barleycorn/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-born-on-third-base/

[guido911]

Couldn't get passed Obama covering for this dooshnozzle.

I thought you'd be all about Romney. Free health care for you paid for by someone else...

[TulsaRufnex]

Couldn't get passed Obama covering for this dooshnozzle.

I thought you'd be all about Romney. Free health care for you paid for by someone else...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-30-2008/festival-of-wrights

Per usual... you think you pay for everyone's... well... everything.
That whole concept of charging someone based on "ability to pay" is evidently foreign (and communist) to you....

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/health_care_now_rati.php

Our nation, which is the only industrial nation in the world that rations medical care by price, ranks 41st in the world in life expectancy. We lose more young lives too.

America lags in newborn mortality and children who die before age 5. Forty-four nations have lower death rates before age 5 than we do.

One can only conclude our medical care rationing system is both very costly and very deadly, especially for poorer Americans. It would be difficult not to do better with any universal care system that does not ration care by ability to pay.

Nations where individual states plan and administer medical care systems can work well, and could approach utopia if they had as much money as we spend. Federal Medicare worked very well until Republicans and their fellow treasury-raiders legislated Medicare D and Medicare Advantage, programs set up to favor for-profit providers, not patients or taxpayers.

How well and at what price states could deliver medical care will depend on how well-structured their delivery systems are and the availability of proper personnel. With resources now available in America, waiting lines or delayed services would be the exception.

No medical care system can do everything for everyone everywhere.

Services are and will be available in Topeka that are not available in Hays, and services will be available in Hays that are not available in Goodland. But movement through the system, whether physical or administrative, can be planned, facilitated, and markedly superior to our present non-system.

In sum, we can have a rational system and use it to its optimum as needed. Any covert rationing would come about because of limitations of personnel or physical facilities, which at current expenditure rates would be highly unlikely.

Beware of those who feign fear of medical care rationing in any universal system, but seem unaware of the death-dealing results we have in our present system of rationing by ability to pay.

[guido911]

Per usual... you think you pay for everyone's... well... everything.

Nope. Just don't want to pay for yours. That's it.

[TulsaRufnex]

Nope. Just don't want to pay for yours. That's it.

And I don't want twentysomethings to sacrifice their Pell Grants and be stuck with privatized student loans with crippling compounded interest just to satisfy your socio-economic tribe's flat tax obsession, wealth entitlement dogma, and delusions of being "job creators" while minimum wage is frozen every time another GOP administration is in power.... btw, you've never PAID for a damned thing for me, dude... I went without seeing a doctor for almost twenty years of my life--- and lived to tell the tale... so stop deluding yourself, punk.  

The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public is not global warming... it's supply-side economics...

BTW, if my un-armed son was murdered by a neighborhood watch guy who claimed "self defense," I'd DEMAND he be arrested... and I'd DEMAND a jury trial.  

End of story.