I have shown this line of reasoning to be fallacious, yet you continue to use it.

This is following, which is not illegal.

Please explain to me where on the force Continuum following lays?

Do you know what the force continuum is? Can you explain its applicability?

You keep parroting on about SYG, even after I have shown that based on the witness testimony it is not a factor in this case.

That we have a possible lack (I say possible becuase the police have no relased all the witness testimony yet) of evidence is not an argument against SYG. This is the logical inconsistency I am arguing against here.

You know, Zimmerman has done a great disservice to the second amendment community, I wish this had never happened. I am all about non-confrontational tactics when dealing with these kinds of situations, HOWEVER I am all about logical thought, proper use of the law, and NOT violating a persons rights becuase we the community want "heads to roll" That leads to anarchy.

What does this have to do with Stand your ground?

I have made logical arguments, counter than with logical arguments of your own. Otherwise your just posting to stir up resentment which is against the forum rules.

The law in question deals with how contact is initiated, and if a person breaks off contact, then the other party reengages. Please do read the original post for clarification. (not that we the public have any information regarding these details: which is the foundation of my argument, without these details you CANNOT know who was responsible for the escalation of the fight)

Name one. Ill help you fight for it, just make a logical case and you will have my support. My main focus politically is supporting individual rights. I support the ACLU, I support the NRA, I support all organizations which work to secure the rights laid out in the constitution and BOR.

Stand your ground is VERY important for individual rights.

Do you think following is the same as hunting someone down?

What is the difference between following and hunting someone down?

These are exactly the kinds of questions that must be answered for you to reach these conclusions, and when a person does not do the work to answer these questions the conclusions they reach are flawed.

Being a critical thinker this is the only reason I care about this case. The worst kind of thought is being used here, emotional rhetoric with 0 objective criteria.

What rights are you referring to, the right to due process, the civil rights which prevent Zimmerman from being arrested without probably cause? . . . and which right wing fanatics?

This post just seems like baiting to me. Be specific please.

thats what complicates it further dragoness, that a physical altercation occured between assuming the boy was criminal and shooting him

and because noone knows for certain the circumstances of the altercation other than at some point the boy was winning,,,,


this law may justify the shooting due to lack of DEFINITIVE evidence of who was the 'aggressor'

wow....
i was raised super-religious, and it never resonated within me.
finding that religion did not make any true sense to me,,,was a gradual, painful thing.

There are no wrong battles in life. You gotta fight for what you gotta fight for. The outcome (like losing) has nothing to do with whether the fight or the battle was right or wrong.