Go back to remedial English then, because that's not what that bill says.

Most people dont get followed by a guy who has repeatedly emailed neighbours warning them to be on the lookout for black people (seriously) and stalks around the neighbourhood patrolling hoping to find trouble so he can stop it (seriously).

Its completely impossible to look at the context of his character and think this isnt a racially motivated murder. What, does he have to hang him from a tree before you give him the benefit of the doubt or even then are you not certain?

Explain how I'm wrong.

The bill says you can kill someone if you think the crime is going to occur. One of those crimes is assault with injury. You can kill to prevent injury (the author even states that as his intent). They aren't allowed to consider retreating an option and as long as you thought the crime was going to occur you're automatically justified. Call me crazy but I feel like there are other options than running or killing when you think a crime is going to occur.

Lol boom philled. Feel free to post anything where I said something like that.

RJoe, did you honestly read the entirety of that bill? If not, I'm not going to bother with this any longer, if so then re-read it, pay particular attention to 704.1 lines 11-15. Also, note that "reasonable force" as defined by the bill is mentioned several times. You will also need to understand, which I don't think you do, that "reasonable force" as laid out in the bill is a continuum. If at any time you use deadly force when another level of force would have been adequate, you're going to jail for murder.

lol wow

seriously though, their hands look like guns

they need to paint their fingertips orange

Hahaha

You are in this thread assuming the black kid - who so far has been shown to have done nothing wrong - did something. Like you have no idea what, of course, but you just feel it in your gut that there is more to this story.

I can only assume you doubt the story because he got iced tea instead of purple drank.

No, it doesn't make it incorrect. Also, that part I specified doesn't say what you think it says. This is a pretty damn important line you seem to be overlooking.

IOW, if an alternative is available and doesn't threaten your safety (or anothers safety), you're legally bound to use that alternative.

Also, lets re-read reasonable force again wrt deadly force:

Necessary, as in required, as in the only means available that will stop whatever is happening to you. Really, this isn't that hard to figure out.

I deleted my post because I didn't really want to argue about it anymore as it's not going to be a law. That being said I'll reply to your last post. What exactly is a 'reasonable' person to believe is 'necessary' to stop a crime that isn't occuring yet? That is one of my biggest problems with that bill. It allows you to kill someone for thinking a crime is about to occur even if you could leave the situation. The reason I don't think I'm reading it wrong is because I've also read the reports and interviews from the sponsors of the bill who are proud to say 'it's not the Castle doctine, that is only about your house. This extends beyond your doorstep'.

I made that guess based on knowing basically nothing about the case because people generally don't get shot in cold blood for no reason, even if that reason doesn't excuse murder.

Anyways, a casual look into the case makes it pretty clear trayvon did something more than walk into and out of a 7-11. Zimmerman had a bloody nose and a wound to the back of his head. It's pretty damn hard to fake those. Seems like a fight happened, probably because the Zimmerman guy was a racist dick.

Obviously trayvon doesn't deserve to be shot because he threw a few punches at a white guy, but it's just dumb to take accounts of an incident like this without thinking critically.

The most logical situation is Trayvon tried to fight for his life against the racist with the gun and he lost. Provoking him to hit the racist is a reasonable conclusion but he still did nothing wrong in that theory either.

No ****, but if he did provoke or chose to fight Zimmerman because he was a dick, do you think he should have done something differently? Do you think he would do something in hindsight if given the chance? The answer to both questions is an obvious yes.

To repeat for the millionth time, that doesn't mean he deserved to die ffs. Basically you're just upset by the fact this kid was killed unnecessarily, which I get, but that doesn't mean you should accept facts completely uncritically.

The best analogy I can think of for this situation is a car accident I got into when I was 17. I was a passenger and our car was going 55 in a 45. We went through a yellow light we could have stopped for. A woman pulled in front of us and we t-boned her. While we obviously aren't legally liable for the crash, we did play a role in it and would have done something differently if given the chance.