I Told You So!
|
Re: I Told You So!
Never doubted your sources for a minute Jim...even the main stream media is being forced to run this story. Eventually the truth always comes out.
|
Re: I Told You So!
I know you didn't doubt me Jim but there are those who called me a racist liar when I reported this. You know who you are.:rolleyes: I doubt there will be an apology when this is all sorted out, do you? Jim
. |
Re: I Told You So!
But now the doj is talking about charging him with a hate crime.
And O J Simpson is trying to get a new trail. Due to incompetant lawyers. |
Re: I Told You So!
"Zimmerman called police the evening of the shooting to report Martin as a suspicious person, police have said. A dispatcher told Zimmerman to stand down and an officer was on the way. Zimmerman confronted the youth anyway and Martin was shot in the chest with Zimmerman's 9 mm pistol, police said. Police questioned Zimmerman, then released him."
This statement from the Huffington Post leaves the question as to Mr. Zimmerman's true intent. This situation would have had a whole different outcome if instructions had been followed. |
Re: I Told You So!
[QUOTE=Eddies66;326714 This situation would have had a whole different outcome if instructions had been followed.[/QUOTE]
seems like you put way too much faith in police. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
That turned out not to be true according to every actual report I've seen or seen quoted, nor is it reported by any actual eyewitness. No witness I'm aware of has said that Zimmerman confronted Martin. By the way, the transcripts and the recordings that have been published and played have all had one important thing edited out. When the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to continue to follow Martin, Zimmerman answered. The answer was "Okay". Of course, contrary to how the justice system is supposed to work in this country, Zimmerman is presumed guilty, and must prove his innocence. Funny how that works. Especially with the media, and how they supposedly publish "facts". I'd trust Dan Rather to tell the truth and get the facts straight before I'd trust "The Huffington Post". At least at one time, Dan Rather was supposedly a legitimate "journalist" or "reporter". |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
yes two people know the facts, and one cant tell. what was travon's reason for being in this situation? ie. what was he doing to be confronted in the first place?
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
. |
Re: I Told You So!
Yep, it is starting to look like Al, Jesse and the rest did not look at the evidence and/or wait for justice to prevail. Maybe this is a lesson learned for everyone that convicts someone before they have "their day in court".
|
Re: I Told You So!
Eddie,the Huffington Post??????????? Tsk,tsk,tsk..........................
31 more to go. |
Re: I Told You So!
So what date is the aquittal scheduled for ? What will be the prime areas to avoid if we are traveling ? ---Trevor
|
Re: I Told You So!
Here is a few questions that any logical person may ask. I for one do not believe it is a crime in this country to wear a “hoodie” especially if it is raining, it is not a crime to go to the store and buy Skittles and ice tea and it is not a crime to be out at night.
On the night of the shooting, door-to-door canvassing was not exhaustive enough, said a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation. If officers had been more thorough, they might have determined that Mr. Martin, 17, was a guest — as opposed to an intruder — at a gated community called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. That would have been an important part of the subjective analysis that night by officers sizing up Mr. Zimmerman’s story. Investigators found no witnesses who saw the fight start. Others saw parts of a struggle they could not clearly observe or hear. One witness, though, provided information to the police that corroborated Mr. Zimmerman’s account of the struggle, according to a law enforcement official. The police took only one photo at the scene of any of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries — a full-face picture of him that showed a bloodied nose — before paramedics tended to him. It was shot on a department cellphone camera and was not downloaded for a few days, an oversight by the officer who took it. The vehicle that Mr. Zimmerman was driving when he first spotted Mr. Martin was mistakenly not secured by officers as part of the crime scene. The vehicle was an important link in the fatal encounter because it was where Mr. Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious teenager in a hooded sweatshirt roaming through the Retreat. Mr. Zimmerman also said he was walking back to the vehicle when he was confronted by Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, before shooting him. The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away. The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle. Some Sanford officers were skeptical from the beginning about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him over and over again, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed he received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin uttered during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded contrived. The Sanford police — who contended that their 16-day investigation, done in consultation with the original prosecutor in the case, was detailed and impartial — also encountered other obstacles. One involved the investigators’ inability to get the password for Mr. Martin’s cellphone from his family, who apparently did not know it. That was significant because Mr. Martin had been talking to a girl on the phone moments before he was killed, but the young woman did not contact the police after Mr. Martin’s death was made public. Police Chief Bill Lee Jr., said in a recent interview. “We think that what he did was terrible. We wish that he had just stayed in his vehicle.” Twice Mr. Zimmerman was told to stay in his vehicle and wait for the police to come. There are 8 minutes from the time Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to the time Mr. Martin was shot. Was Mr. Zimmerman defending himself or was Mr. Martin actually defending himself from this over-zealous, agenda driven, armed want-a-be cop?? |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Eddie you make it sound like this was a targeted hit.
Everyone agrees Trayon should not have been killed. He was not breaking the law. But by the same token Zimmerman might not have broken any law either. It is not against the law to disregard a 911 operator. They are not law enforcement, they are phone operators. It is not against the law to follow someone. Even if the 911 operator said not to. The police have had all this "new" info since the day this happened. That is probably why they didn't charge him at the time. Now there is rumors of a federal hate crime charge. This is just mob mentality, looking for revenge. I believe (looking at the evidence the media has put out) that he won't even go to trial. Or if he does he'll be aquitted. I for one am sick and tired of the double standard. If a white or straight, or "rich" person has a problem with a person of color, or a non hetrosexual, or poor person It is called a hate crime. But if it's the other way around it's just an assault or a mugging. The assault a couple a weeks ago in Norfolk Va was a prime example. A mob of Black men surrounds a car with 2 white peolple. 5 of them beat the man and woman severly enough to cause over a weeks absence from work.The only station that had the guts to report on it was Fox. Where was "your" reverend al or jesse? Where is the DOJ on this one. Did the man and woman have any civil rights? |
Re: I Told You So!
I called 911 on a DUI suspect coming home from the races around 1:00 a.m. The guy was all over the road. 911 operator asked if I could tail from a distance until officers had the suspect in their sights. I did for a few miles. Then the subject turned north, I told 911 I had to continue east and they said "no problem, they have him in their sights, thanks for you help". Right then the suspect slammed into a car and in about 3 seconds there were three police cars surrounding the suspect.
Now, had 911 told me to back off, I wouldn't. SOP for a 911 operator is to get the citizens out of harms way on a police case. Just as I mentioned before, if a house is on fire, I'm calling 911 and if I analyze that help is needed and a kid is in there, I'm most likely going in even if 911 tells me not to (and you know they will). My point is, whatever 911 said has little to no bearing on this case. 911 could be used as a timeline that Zimmerman heeded to the 911 operators call and was backing off his tail of the Martin and was subsequently assaulted. In the end, Zimmerman MAY be exonerated. And then he can sue the Martin family for assault and the humility and death sentences. Yea, that would go over really good... |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
As far as people saying that Mr. Zimmerman's injuries support his defense that he had to defend himself, that correlation cannot be made. His victim was most likely the one trying to defend himself. If someone chased me down with a gun you better believe I would fight for my life, and there is a strong likelihood based on what we know and the fact that Mr. Martin was aggressively pursued (against police instructions), that might be exactly what happened. Mr. Zimmerman being beat up may only confirm the threat that Mr. Martin felt, having no idea this guy was a neighborhood watchman but only knowing he was pursuing him with a gun. I can't imagine any of us would feel otherwise if we were in his situation. Justice, whatever that may be in this case, might never come though because the police from the moment they arrived, didn't take this murder investigation seriously enough. Just my opinion! |
Re: I Told You So!
Yeah, because it is always smart, the right thing to do, and legal, to confront someone you think is following you. :rolleyes:
The complete lack of logic in some of these posts is amazing. So is the number and level of assumptions. Who says Martin's life is supposed to "have meaning"? Is the life of every criminal who is killed during the commission of a crime supposed to "have meaning"? Yeah, assault is a crime. It is every bit as likely that the incident went exactly as Zimmerman says it did. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman was returning to his car, Martin confronted him, attacked him, and he shot Martin to keep Martin from continuing to bash his head into the concrete sidewalk. That is, by the way, legal and proper use of lethal force in most every state in the union. You, Eddie, have convicted Zimmerman without first hand knowledge of any evidence, with nothing more than assumptions. You do not know if anything you have posted is even remotely true. And then you go further and attempt to crucify the police, who were actually there, as being incompetent, or worse, corrupt. Yet Martin, who was sent to stay with his father because he would not stay out of trouble and obey his mother, you portray as being as pure as the driven snow, despite evidence to the contrary. Namely his criminal activity that got him in trouble and sent to stay with his father to begin with. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
One quick example: " If someone chased me down with a gun you better believe I would fight for my life, " You have NO evidence of this ever happening in this case.... NONE! |
Re: I Told You So!
For the life of me, I can't understand why the media hasn't posted a cute baby picture of Martin, rather than the semi-angelic photo of a young Martin or the more recent picture that is closer to reality
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
More lame-stream media:
1. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s “suspicious” behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman was in his car when he saw Martin walking on the street. He called the police and said: “There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about… These a**holes always get away” [Orlando Sentinel] 2. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher: Dispatcher: “Are you following him?” Zimmerman: “Yeah” Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” [Orlando Sentinel] 3. Prior to the release of the 911 tapes, Zimmerman’s father released a statement claiming “[a]t no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.” [Sun Sentinel] 4. Zimmerman was carrying a 9 millimeter handgun. Martin was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. [ABC News] 5. Martin weighed 140 pounds. Zimmerman weighs well over 200 pounds. [Orlando Sentinel; WDBO] 6. Martin’s English teacher described him “as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness.” [Orlando Sentinel] 7. Martin had no criminal record. [New York Times] 8. Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped.” [Huffington Post] 9. Zimmerman called the police 46 times since 2004. [Daily Beast] 10. According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.” [Miami Herald] 11. Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics” [Huffington Post] 12. A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News] 13. Three witnesses say they heard a boy cry for help before a shot was fired. “Three witnesses contacted by The Miami Herald say they saw or heard the moments before and after the Miami Gardens teenager’s killing. All three said they heard the last howl for help from a despondent boy.” [Miami Herald] 14. The officer in charge of the crime scene also received criticism in 2010 when he initially failed to arrest a lieutenant’s son who was videotaped attacking a homeless black man. [New York Times] 15. The police did not test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. A law enforcement expert told ABC that Zimmerman sounds intoxicated on the 911 tapes. Drug and alcohol testing is “standard procedure in most homicide investigations.” [ABC News] 16. In a cell phone call moments before his death, Martin told a teenage girl that he was “hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him.” “‘He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,’ Martin’s friend said. ‘I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.’ Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. ‘Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’” [ABC News] 17. Police have Trayvon Martin’s cell phone but never contacted his girlfriend. [Miami Herald] 18. Zimmerman told the police “he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck.” “He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.” [Miami Herald] 19. The incident occurred in a tiny gated community Zimmerman patrolled regularly. [Miami Herald] 20. Zimmerman was not a member of a registered Neighborhood Watch group. Zimmerman also violated basic Neighborhood Watch guidelines by carrying a weapon. [ABC News] |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
Re: I Told You So!
Eddie.
You talk about a lot of stuff that sounds good to you but has absolutly no basis in law. Fact. Under the Florida stand your ground law the person that confronts you does not have to be armed. So yes it is legal to shoot an unarmed person. If he was attacked he had every right to shoot. Zimmerman was not breaking any law by carrying the gun. The rest of the country does not have to comply with your california justice system. I wasn't there. But neither were you. So let this play out in the courts and we will see what really went on. And you should add to your list. The autopsy showed Trayvon had cuts on his knuckles similar to those someone would get from punching someone. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
My comments may not have a basis in the law but you can bet this and more will be brought to bear on Mr. Zimmerman's character and creditability. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
You really like to leave out facts you don't like. Such as, when advised by the dispatcher "we don't need you to do that", you and the "Orlando Sentinel" conveniently leave out the part where Zimmerman replied "Okay". There is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that. None. You conveniently, again, leave out the part where Martin was sent to stay with his father because his mother could not get him to behave. And the part where he was in trouble at school, for either theft or vandalism, or both. No, what you want is not justice. If you wanted justice, you would not attempt to try Zimmerman and the police in the court of public opinion, with no evidence of your own, and no verified evidence at all. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
The law. That's where we get "justice". Yeah, you're right, your comments have zero basis in law or factual evidence. Now we have evidence that lily white young Martin was smoking pot at the time, it was in his blood and urine. But hey, ONLY Zimmerman's character and credibility are in question. At least according to Eddie. Martin is a saint, an innocent paragon of goodness, guilty only of "walking while black". :rolleyes: Well, except for the part where Zimmerman's injuries are entirely consistent with his version of the assault, a bloody nose, which was broken, two black eyes, a laceration on his forehead, a laceration on the back of his head, and various contusions. Seems pot wasn't the only thing the medical examiner found when examining Martin, there were also lacerations and contusions on his hands consistent with striking another person with his fists. That and the nature of the gunshot wound also is consistent with Zimmerman's version of events. Don't worry Eddie, you'll get "justice". :rolleyes: Eric Holder's thugs will try Zimmerman for "civil rights violations". Yeah, Eric Holder, that thug who let Mexicans have guns to kill Border Patrol officers. The same thug who dismissed the case against the Black Panthers who were seen by multiple witnesses with weapons at polling places intimidating voters. No bias there, another true paragon of truth, justice, and the American way. :rolleyes: |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
You seem to think that it is unusual for a child to be moved to the same-gender parent when they have a disciplinary problem, most schools and counselors recommend it. So what is your point? He was a disciplinary problem and not a felon. |
Re: I Told You So!
Thomas Sowell's take on the case:
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against George Zimmerman for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, what has happened already is enough to turn the stomach of anyone who believes in either truth or justice. An amazing proportion of the media has given us a painful demonstration of the thinking — and lack of thinking — that prevailed back in the days of the old Jim Crow South, where complexion counted more than facts in determining how people were treated. One of the first things presented in the media was a transcript of a conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher. The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin. That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K." That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn't. Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. The issue is not one of being "fair" to "both sides" but, more fundamentally, of being honest with their audience. NBC News carried the editing even further, removing one of the police dispatcher's questions, to which Zimmerman was responding, in order to feed the vision of Zimmerman as a racist. In the same vein were the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"? All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game. If the tragic history of the old Jim Crow South in this country is not enough to show that, the history of racial and ethnic tragedies is written in blood in countries around the world. Millions have lost their lives because they looked different, talked differently or belonged to a different religion. In the midst of the Florida tragedy, there was a book published with the unwieldy title, "No Matter What ... They'll Call This Book Racist." Obviously it was written well before the shooting in Florida, but its message — that there is rampant hypocrisy and irrationality in public discussions of race — could not have been better timed. Author Harry Stein, a self-described "reformed white liberal," raised by parents who were even further left, exposes the illogic and outright fraudulence that lies behind so much of what is said about race in the media, in politics and in our educational institutions. He asks a very fundamental question: "Why, even after the Duke University rape fiasco, does the media continue to give credence to every charge of racism?" Harry Stein credits Shelby Steele's book "White Guilt" with opening his eyes to one of the sources of many counterproductive things said and done about race today — namely, guilt about what was done to blacks and other minorities in the past. Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman — justly or unjustly — will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn't commit. Letting hoodlums get away with hoodlumism today does not undo a single injustice of the past. It is not even a favor to the hoodlums, for many of whom hoodlumism is just the first step on a path that leads to the penitentiary, and maybe to the execution chamber. Winston Churchill said, "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." He wasn't talking about racial issues, but what he said applies especially where race is involved. Part II, from Thomas Sowell: Around this time of year, I sometimes hear from parents who have been appalled to learn that the child they sent away to college to become educated has instead been indoctrinated with the creed of the left. They often ask if I can suggest something to have their offspring read over the summer, in order to counteract this indoctrination. This year the answer is a no-brainer. It is a book with the unwieldy title, "No matter what ... they'll call this book Racist" by Harry Stein, a writer for what is arguably America's best magazine, "City Journal." In a little over 200 very readable pages, the author deftly devastates with facts the nonsense about race that dominates much of what is said in the media and in academia. There is no subject on which lies and half-truths have become so much the norm on ivy-covered campuses than is the subject of race. Moreover, anyone who even questions these lies and half-truths is almost certain to be called a "racist," especially in academic institutions which loudly proclaim a "diversity" that is confined to demographics, and all but forbidden when it comes to a diversity of ideas. The ultimate irony is that many of those who publicly promote or accept the prevailing party line on race do not themselves accept it privately. A few years ago, when a faculty vote on affirmative action was proposed at the University of California at Berkeley, there was a fierce disagreement as to whether that vote should be taken by secret ballot or at an open faculty meeting. Both sides understood that many professors would vote one way in secret and the opposite way in public. In short, hypocrisy is the norm in discussions of race — and not just at Berkeley. Moreover, it is the norm among blacks as well as whites. Black civil rights attorneys and activists who denounce whites for objecting to the bussing of kids from the ghetto into their neighborhood schools have not hesitated to send their own children to private schools, instead of subjecting them to this kind of "diversity" in the public schools. As for whites, author Harry Stein says that many white liberals "give blacks a pass on behaviors and attitudes they would regard as unacceptable and even abhorrent in their own kind." This, of course, is no favor to those particular blacks — especially those among young ghetto blacks whose counterproductive behavior puts them on a path that leads nowhere but to welfare, at best, and behind bars or death in gangland street warfare at worst. In the introduction to his book, Stein says that his purpose is "to talk honestly about race." He accomplishes that purpose in a fact-filled book that should be a revelation, especially to young people of any race, who have been fed a party line in schools and colleges across America. He looks behind the highly sanitized picture of Al Sharpton, as a civil rights statesman with his own MSNBC program and his designation as a White House adviser, to the factual reality of a man with a trail of slime that has included inciting mobs, in some cases costing innocent lives. Positive news also receives its due. Some readers of this book may be surprised to learn that the ban on racial preferences in the University of California system did not lead to a disappearance of blacks from the system, as the supporters of affirmative action claimed would happen. On the contrary, more blacks graduated from the system after the ban — for the very common sense reason that they were now admitted to University of California campuses where they qualified, rather than to places like UCLA and Berkeley, where they had often been admitted to fill a quota, and often failed. Stein's book is also one of the few places where many young people will see the actual words of people like Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Pat Moynihan and others who have opposed the fashionable platitudes that confuse racial issues. Whether those words convince all readers is not the point. The point, especially for young readers in our schools and colleges, is that this may be one of the few times they will ever encounter a fundamentally different set of views on race — views that they have only heard referred to as coming from "Uncle Toms" or "racists." |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
You seem to enjoy questioning the character and credibility of Zimmerman, and you give Martin a complete pass. It's ludicrous and absurd. The bias is hilarious, albeit sad. Your entire fantasy version of the incident ignores all fact, logic, and evidence. You tell us Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. There's no evidence of that. You tell us Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 60 pounds, yet he ran Martin down, evidently while brandishing a gun, and confronted him. Then, poor little Martin managed to break Zimmerman's nose, bloody his nose, black both his eyes, as well cut his forehead and the back of his head. All of this he did to the big bully Zimmerman, while Zimmerman had his gun out, and only after all that did Zimmerman, who supposedly had his gun out, and his cell phone, shoot Martin. Here we have Martin, the 140 pound teenage athlete, who apparently, according to you anyway, sees the older and heavier Zimmerman, and apparently sees he has a gun. So instead of running, the unarmed Martin attacks him? Seriously? :rolleyes: Zimmerman is being railroaded. Under any other circumstances, had black politicians not gotten involved, the case would have been dismissed for what it is, a violent assault on a citizen which resulted in the death of the perpetrator of the assault. If the "special prosecutor" does not succeed in railroading Zimmerman, Eric Holder's minions in the Injustice Department will succeed in getting "civil rights" charges trumped up against him, and the overwhelming power of the federal government will steam roll Zimmerman. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/...eased/#slide=1 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...d-media-didnt/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactiv...immerman-case/ "There are none so blind as those who will not see" 1546 (John Heywood) . |
Re: I Told You So!
This is what it boils down to, the "Stand your ground law"...this is copied from CFIF????? Interpret it as you may.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components: It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense. |
Re: I Told You So!
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.