re: #204 Daniel Ballard

“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?

Under what law? Not the law in question, right?

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.

I’m sorry, but your read isn’t of the law. Your read is of some law that says something about a requirement to be standing, and this law has so much requirement.

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.

But the law doesn’t consider those eventualities. It’s not there at all. The law simply says if you’re in a place where you have a right to be and are not committing a crime. It doesn’t say you have to be not pursuing someone.

Your read of it would mean that someone couldn’t claim self-defense if they ran after a purse-snatcher who then turned and attacked them. Is that your contention?