Trayvon Martin case: All female jury picked---Verdict Not Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, so they bought old medals and repurposed them to mean new things?
Or was it a costume?

**SoloFalcon1138**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As a side note to the trial check out the class act the local PD are!

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2013/07/01/navy-cross-recipient-jeremiah-workman-questions-cops-ribbons-in-trayvon-martin-case/

My fellow jarhead and bad ass Navy Cross recipient Jeremiah Workman apparently knows his ribbon racks when he sees them, enough to stop this cop's weird looking ribbon rack!

Workman, a Navy Cross recipient who left the Marine Corps in 2010, posted a photo of Singleton to his Facebook page after he saw her take the stand. He said he heard her say that she served three years in the Army, but the ribbon rack on her chest didn’t match that of someone who served so few years — or even of this generation.

Two in particular stood out, he said: the World War II Army of Occupation Medal and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

“Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate?” he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.

“I worked at the Pentagon with Sergeant Major [Carlton] Kent and General [James] Conway for two years and I was around every general in the Marine Corps,” Workman told Marine Corps Times. “I know these high ribbons, I know just about all the ribbons anyways.”

The Sanford Police Department could not immediately be reached for comment. But Workman got a hold of them and said they told him they didn’t have their own awards system, so they went to the Army-Navy store around the corner and picked out Defense Department military ribbons to fit their own format. The WWII was selected, the police department official told Workman, because they knew there weren’t many veterans from that period alive so they didn’t think people would notice.

“At the end of his explanation I thought to myself, ‘So that makes it all better now because these guys are dead?’ ” Workman said. ”The fact that that was their response is still pretty shameful, I think.”

Workman said police departments allowing military veterans to wear ribbons they earned while serving on their new uniform is fine with him. If they earned it, they should be able to wear it, he said.

“But what kind of professional police department would send Bob the patrolman around the corner to go pick out some ribbons for our officers to wear when they do something heroic or have good service over the years?” he asked.

Workman said the police department official told him that they’re going to change to their own ribbon system, which he was glad to hear. Now he hopes other police departments doing the same will think about their own regulations and change them too, he added.

Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.

Two things:

1. she is not representing herself as a military vet. the ribbons are being used to represent law enforcement awards

2. the department's sloppy decision to use military ribbons for law enforcement awards has no bearing on this officer's testimony.

**d-usa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As a side note to the trial check out the class act the local PD are!

Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.

To be fair, I have known a few departments (both fire and police) that did something similar. They do award ribbons for certain actions, and many of them don't have custom ribbons designed for their department awards. Instead they just pick some generic ribbons out of a book, and say "this one is for X award".

So while whoever made the decision to use that badge for whatever award may have been a bit slowed, it doesn't mean that the cop wore it in order to pretent he was a WW2 veteran.

Edit: only noticed their explanation to that effect on my second read through

My old department was looking at ribbons for awards, but we were looking at generic "Blue with different stripes for EMS awards" and "Red with different stripes for Fire awards".

**daedalus**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.

I'm no military man, and I'll be among the last to justify any military action we've taken in a long, long time.

Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

**d-usa**

daedalus wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.

I'm no military man, and I'll be among the last to justify any military action we've taken in a long, long time.

Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

I bought a bunch without having to show any kind of proof of service.

I got Desert Storm ribbons, including the Saudi and Kuwait versions, different Army ribbons, etc. I got them for a good reason (surprised my step dad by replacing his ribbon bar that I lost as a teenager), but for all effective purposes I was just a stranger buying random ribbons that I didn't earn.

http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/

Edit: what total non-proof of any sevice will get you:

**Seaward**

daedalus wrote:
Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

How else would you get them? Ribbons, rank insignia, etc. get lost all the damn time. Need to be able to replace 'em quickly.

**daedalus**

Seaward wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

How else would you get them? Ribbons, rank insignia, etc. get lost all the damn time. Need to be able to replace 'em quickly.

I guess I just figured there'd be a little more to it.

**d-usa**

daedalus wrote:
Seaward wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

How else would you get them? Ribbons, rank insignia, etc. get lost all the damn time. Need to be able to replace 'em quickly.

I guess I just figured there'd be a little more to it.

When I ordered the ones for my dad I had two options:

Buy plain ribbons from some store.

Or take his discharge papers, send them to the Army with more paperwork, and then receive officials medals with his name engraved in them in a fancy box with the ribbons and mini-metals as well which would take months.

I don't think "I send my paperwork into DC, they are still processing it" will get you out of trouble during uniform inspections if you are in active service though

**KalashnikovMarine**

To be clear, I'm not saying it has any relevance of the fethhead in question's testimony or ability as a LEO, but rather taking awards that are in one case in active use, and in other cases legacies belonging solely to WW2 veterans and "re-purposing them" and knowing exactly what you're doing is down right heinous behavior. I get that not every department outside of major outfits if they use a ribbon system at all will have custom ribbons made, the generic set up your EMS/FD department had sounds great d-usa and I'm sure other such generic ribbon systems exist specifically for this purpose. Running down to the local surplus store... there's just no excuse.

**d-usa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
To be clear, I'm not saying it has any relevance of the fethhead in question's testimony or ability as a LEO, but rather taking awards that are in one case in active use, and in other cases legacies belonging solely to WW2 veterans and "re-purposing them" and knowing exactly what you're doing is down right heinous behavior. I get that not every department outside of major outfits if they use a ribbon system at all will have custom ribbons made, the generic set up your EMS/FD department had sounds great d-usa and I'm sure other such generic ribbon systems exist specifically for this purpose. Running down to the local surplus store... there's just no excuse.

Yeah, until my second reading I didn't realize that they actually knew what ribbons they were using.

**Ouze**

This ribbon thing as the outrage of the moment is pretty dumb. It's a piece of cloth and metal that signifies something different on one uniform than another. If anything, the real irritation is that the police are wearing military-style ribbons at all - you're civilians enforcing the law, you don't need all the tacticool paramilitary accoutrements.

**Seaward**

I think the "outrage of the moment" is still the prosecution setting Zimmerman up to star in a Lifelock commercial.

The medal thing is an annoyance that likely won't be felt by most.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.

Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.

Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.

And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.

Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.

Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.

And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

I like the insult, but you conveniently DIDN"T ANSWER THE fething QUESTION
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

What Criminal act doughboy?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.

Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.

Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.

And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

I like the insult, but you conveniently DIDN"T ANSWER THE fething QUESTION
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

What Criminal act doughboy?

Yelling and cursing, don't you have a dachshund to feed?

How about you answer the questions, that is if you can take your finger of the Caps Lock button for a while:

1) Do you know what happened when Martin confronted Zimmerman? Didn't think so. I know that people love to pretent that Martin came out of nowhere and instantly started bashing Z's head into the ground, but we have absolutely no idea that is what happened.
2) If somebody was following you in a vehicle, and then got out of the vehicle to follow you more, you wouldn't stand your ground at that time? Big old Texas old cranky guy would just run away? I don't think so.
3) Martin had every right to stand his ground and confront Zimmerman. We have absolutely zero clue what happened during that confrontation and when and how it turned physical.

So Caps Lock some more if it makes you feel tough, and pretend that you know what happened. But fact is that M had zero obligation to walk away from this situation and had the right to confront the man following him. That's SYG. It's not "I'm scared, I should run" it is "I feel threatened, I will stand my ground".

M doesn't have to know if Z was commiting a criminal act. What criminal act was M in the proccess of when Z decided to follow him? All that matters for M is that if he felt threatened, then he was allowed to stand his ground and confront Z. If that confrontation started with "What do you want you creepy ass cracker" than that would be perfectly fine. If Z said anything that could be constituted as a threat to M then he had the right to defend himself.

But you know exactly what happened and you would either not feel threatened if somebody was following through or you would just run away and go home.

**Frazzled**

You keep saying TM could defend himself. You have to have a very specific set of items to defend yourself against.

Again. WHAT CRIMINAL ACT WOULD HE HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM.

You like to insult other's when you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.

**Hordini**

Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.

Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

**Frazzled**

Hordini wrote:
Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things.

Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Thank you. Exactly.
Just following someone is not sufficient grounds for self defense or SYG. Thats sufficient grounds to call the PoPo and have them check out the fat guy, but not you to put on your blue bandanna and go Crip on him.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.

I'm no military man, and I'll be among the last to justify any military action we've taken in a long, long time.

Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.

They should have to wear Dora the Explora pins.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
You keep saying TM could defend himself. You have to have a very specific set of items to defend yourself against.

Again. WHAT CRIMINAL ACT WOULD HE HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM.

You like to insult other's when you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.

Seriously dude, back away from the Caps Lock, you are going to have a stroke.

If you tried some reading comprehension I actually said two different things:

1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.

2) Unless the great Dachshund in the sky told you what happened, then you don't have a grasp of the basic facts of what happened when M confronted Z either. You can caps lock all you want, but you know exactly zero about what happened once M stood his ground against Z. What did Z say, what did M say, what did Z do, what did M do. If Z made a sudden movement after M verbally confronted him then that could have been enough to make M fear for his life and would have given him justification to use deadly force. You don't know what happened and neither do I. But M might have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against Z, and Z migiht have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against M. Or both might have been justified to use deadly force, or maybe neither.

You can caps look all you want, but your refusal to admit that your basic CC course most likely taught you that somebody doing what Z did while following you should be considered a threat to your safety speaks volumes.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

I'd think twice about it. I'd probably think about it a lot more than that. I'd also make sure I kept an eye on him and knew what he was up to until either he or I was off the scene. I wouldn't haul off and start slugging the guy or draw on him, though. Because that's remarkably illegal.

Apparently my military and concealed carry training was pretty deficient, because we never got to the, "if someone looks suspicious, fething shoot them," stage.

**d-usa**

Hordini wrote:
Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.

Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Like I said, SYG covers M confronting Z about why he was following him. Whatever happened after that might have justified either, both, or neither to use deadly force. We don't know that.

But this whole "If M would have just gone home" talk is BS.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.

You keep bringing this up, and I have no idea where you're getting it from. The only way duty to retreat/stand your ground shenanigans come into play is if Martin was in immediate, reasonable fear for his life. If you're concluding that someone following someone else represents that, then all I can say is that your findings do not match with any case law in history that I'm aware of.

People are allowed to follow you, and you're not allowed to use deadly force to get them to stop. Them's the breaks, kiddo.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.

Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.

Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.

And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

Oh this is just outright grand.

Please explain to me where in million or so dollars the military has spent in my training over the last 11 years I missed this nugget, that I was allowed to attack people who were following me.

I want an answer to this right now, you called my military service into it, so I want you to clearly lay it out. I've never been presented with ROE that entitled me to do that. I just completed my annual LOAC training yesterday, and I saw no reference of that. Explain to me how my "crappy military training" has let me down. Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You keep saying TM could defend himself. You have to have a very specific set of items to defend yourself against.

Again. WHAT CRIMINAL ACT WOULD HE HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM.

You like to insult other's when you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.

Seriously dude, back away from the Caps Lock, you are going to have a stroke.

If you tried some reading comprehension I actually said two different things:

1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.

2) Unless the great Dachshund in the sky told you what happened, then you don't have a grasp of the basic facts of what happened when M confronted Z either. You can caps lock all you want, but you know exactly zero about what happened once M stood his ground against Z. What did Z say, what did M say, what did Z do, what did M do. If Z made a sudden movement after M verbally confronted him then that could have been enough to make M fear for his life and would have given him justification to use deadly force. You don't know what happened and neither do I. But M might have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against Z, and Z migiht have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against M. Or both might have been justified to use deadly force, or maybe neither.

You can caps look all you want, but your refusal to admit that your basic CC course most likely taught you that somebody doing what Z did while following you should be considered a threat to your safety speaks volumes.

Evidently your knowledge of the law consists of knowing the headline "no duty to retreat"
You have to have a crime to retreat from. Strangely enough people can't walk into a mall full of people and open up with a gatling gun, because they have no duty to retreat. All "no retreat" means is that he doesn't have to perform statistcial perfection in running, jumping, and parallel bars to evade attack (thank you NY courts for that) before he can defend himself. but there still has to be a specific thing he's defending himself from. SO...
So again smithy smithe WHAT CRIME DOES HE HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.

Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Like I said, SYG covers M confronting Z about why he was following him. Whatever happened after that might have justified either, both, or neither to use deadly force. We don't know that.

But this whole "If M would have just gone home" talk is BS.

Thats not SYG by the way.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.

You keep bringing this up, and I have no idea where you're getting it from. The only way duty to retreat/stand your ground shenanigans come into play is if Martin was in immediate, reasonable fear for his life. If you're concluding that someone following someone else represents that, then all I can say is that your findings do not match with any case law in history that I'm aware of.

People are allowed to follow you, and you're not allowed to use deadly force to get them to stop. Them's the breaks, kiddo.

So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.

But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?

Interesting.

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?

I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.

Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.

Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.

And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.

Oh this is just outright grand.

Please explain to me where in million or so dollars the military has spent in my training over the last 11 years I missed this nugget, that I was allowed to attack people who were following me.

I want an answer to this right now, you called my military service into it, so I want you to clearly lay it out. I've never been presented with ROE that entitled me to do that. I just completed my annual LOAC training yesterday, and I saw no reference of that. Explain to me how my "crappy military training" has let me down.

If you had reading comprehension then you would have seen that it was an either/or question.

If you military training didn't let you down, then I stand by my statement that I think you guys are lying when you pretent that somebody doing what Z did would not be something that you would consider suspicious if it happened to you. Because your military training should have taught you that it was suspicious behavior and should warrant investigation, even though everybody likes to pretent that it was normal and M should have just gone home.

Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.

If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.

Do you guys just go firing off your rifles whenever you investigate something, or will you admit that they are separate events.

**Frazzled**

Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.

Have you seen some of the 'people' at Walmart? We're talking neanderthals and ape men. I know - Frazzled is good customer there. NOG!

(Child sees Frazzled in the sporting goods section, looking longingly at the 900 inch TVs)
"Mommy is that Bigfoot?"
"Dearie don't be redicul...oh..uh why yes yes it is dearie. Time to go."

There's a reason there's no mass shooting in Walmarts...

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.

No.

If you are facing or reasonably believe yourself to be facing an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force under SYG laws, without a requisite attempt to escape first.

But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?

Interesting.

No, you're allowed to do that.

You're not allowed to start attacking the person following you, though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.

You're talking about Stand Your Ground laws, which cover the use of deadly force in self-defense. You keep saying that Trayvon had a right to "stand his ground" under SYG laws in response to Zimmerman following him.

I was not aware you meant "by asking him a question," which has abso-fething-lutely nothing at all to do with SYG laws. If your argument is that Trayvon had a right to ask Zimmerman what he was up to, you really need to stop invoking SYG, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the right to speak to another person in a public space.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.

No.

If you are facing or reasonably believe yourself to be facing an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force under SYG laws, without a requisite attempt to escape first.

But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?

Interesting.

No, you're allowed to do that.

You're not allowed to start attacking the person following you, though.

And we have absolutely zero knowledge that this is what happened. There is a pretty big grey area between the moment M confronted him and the time he ended up beating him and the time he ended up dead.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
And we have absolutely zero knowledge that this is what happened. There is a pretty big grey area between the moment M confronted him and the time he ended up beating him and the time he ended up dead.

See the automatically appended response above.