re: #172 Obdicut

No, it’s not an indication either way. The law, as it exists, protects the right of someone to use lethal force if they ‘reasonably’ believe they have to to defend themselves against an attacker anywhere that they have the right to be.

The fact that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon is immaterial to the law, unless you’re contending it was illegal for him to do so under some other law or it took him somewhere he had no right to be.

The law is about what the person is allowed to do when attacked.

Are you contending Zimmerman had no right to be where he was when he shot Trayvon?

“Are you contending Zimmerman had no right to be where he was when he shot”

No. He had no right to pursue and initiate the confrontation. Am I clear now?

You know from the recent posts between us what I think, and it is not what you wrote in that last line. I’m puzzled that you would even write that given what you read from me yesterday. You have your read and I have mine.

My contention as i thought I had made clear is he followed/pursued/stalked the kid. All of which is beyond the scope as I read it, and as the sponsor says he intended. BTW since we last chatted about this I sent some emails out to some contacts I have in the legal community. So far I got one response and the feeling was either interpretation could prevail in a prosecutors office.