Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What if Trayvon felt threatened by this big lug with fantasies of being a cop following him around? What if Trayvon had a weapon and shot Zimmerman dead? We wouldn't even be having this conversation. Trayvon would have been arrested that evening. I'd bet my life on that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's a thought: Maybe the NRA is absolutely right. Maybe black teenagers in Florida need to be carrying firearms to protect themselves. Clearly, they have a right to stand their ground as well, no? And clearly, George Zimmerman is still out there, perhaps he'll feel the need to track down some other "suspicious" teen. Arm up, kids. And stand your ground.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This is lifted from the article I linked to earlier: "In American jurisdictions there has long been an exception to the duty to retreat called the "Castle Doctrine." As then-Judge (and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo explained in 1914: "It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home." In recent times, "stand your ground" laws extended this concept in many states beyond the home to any place where a person might lawfully be found, such as a bar or a public sidewalk. Florida's version enacted in 2005 (over the objection of many in law enforcement) is one of the most far reaching. The law states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present has "no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." Importantly, a person cannot invoke this provision if he is "engaged in unlawful activity" or "initially provokes the use of force against himself." Finally, in Florida, once self-defense becomes an issue at trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense -- a heavy burden. This is the legal backdrop against which Florida's prosecuting authorities must assess all claims of self-defense, including Zimmerman's. In an ideal world, law enforcement would make this assessment by thoroughly investigating the case and, after determining the provable facts, comparing those facts to the law. Critical to this determination will be evidence reflecting: how the confrontation began and how the suspect acted after the confrontation (prosecutors often look for actions such as flight or a cover-up that indicate a "consciousness of guilt"). Perhaps most critically, investigators will compare all the evidence (physical and otherwise) with the suspect's statement (if any) about what happened. If the investigation reveals sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (as Florida law defines that concept), he can be prosecuted. If not, charges are unwarranted." In other words, anyone prosecuting him would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. They'll need to get a unanimous jury in Florida to agree he wasn't trying to defend himself, not 12 indignant posters on a message board. Based upon what they have so far stacked up against the applicable Florida law, it's a tough sell. I don't know if Florida has involuntary manslaughter, most states do, but to me, that's the best they have. A death resulted from Zimmerman's reckless act. By the way, disobeying the dispatcher and following him isn't a crime. Pigheaded to be sure, but not a crime.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The law states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present has "no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."<< Right, so Zimmerman needs to explain in a court of law why he felt that a kid half his size, unarmed, was about to do "great bodily harm" to him.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Easy enough. "I thought he had a knife. Or a gun." Size of the kid doesn't matter if he thought that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>By the way, disobeying the dispatcher and following him isn't a crime. Pigheaded to be sure, but not a crime.<< Obviously I am no lawyer, but doesn't the fact that he did so suggest a certain mindset, or at least actions that lead to a confrontation that could have very reasonably been avoided? In other words, that Zimmerman himself caused the confrontation?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They'll need to get a unanimous jury in Florida to agree he wasn't trying to defend himself, not 12 indignant posters on a message board.<< 250 lb. man, with gun. 110 pound kid soaking wet, with no weapon. If he felt threatened, he's an even bigger.... nah, I won't say it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Obviously I am no lawyer, but doesn't the fact that he did so suggest a certain mindset, or at least actions that lead to a confrontation that could have very reasonably been avoided? In other words, that Zimmerman himself caused the confrontation?" Certainly, the fact he disobeyed can go towards showing a certain mindset or intent, but beyond that, Zimmerman could also say he disobeyed because of something he subsequently thought he saw.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Please keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Overall, I think Florida's law has set up the George Zimmermans of the world to fail. Enabled them, if you will. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin ever stood a chance because Rednecks run Florida. This is what you get with Second Amendment zealotry, police cutbacks, and an environment that fosters a Them v. Us attitude. Why more deaths like this haven't occurred is the amazing thing here. The Zimmermans of the world, as they "watch" their community, playing police officer, have no oversight, no regulator, just a voice on one end to ignore if they choose. Maybe martin doesn't in vain and things change. I'd focus on that as opposed to getting a pound of flesh from Zimmerman. He was just too stupid to know better, seriously.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<"I thought he had a knife. Or a gun." Size of the kid doesn't matter if he thought that.>> Wouldn't this reading of the law be trumped by federal civil rights law though? Otherwise any speculative fear of "danger" could be brought up, reasonable or not, and thus denying the victim his day in court? Sounds like a recipe for virtual anarchy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I don't know if Florida has involuntary manslaughter, most states do, but to me, that's the best they have. A death resulted from Zimmerman's reckless act." Well, there's that. Wouldn't have to be murder one-- it might not BE murder one. It might be more reckless than premeditated. But they should charge him with something. No reason I can see that a county or state DA has to play along with a PD that pretty clearly botched this. Especially with the public rightfully demanding an arrest. (And let's not pretend that DA's don't pay attention to that.) And I know you're just being devil's advocate, SPP. This law is infuriating.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It is not illegal to follow someone. If it were, PIs would not be in business. It is not illegal to ask any other person a question or otherwise initiate verbal contact. The case rests on who initiated physical contact first. One side believes Zimmerman was the one to physically contact/detain/whatever Trayvon first. The other side believes that Trayvon was somehow offended by Zimmerman's verbal contact and attacked Zimmerman, forcing Zimmerman to defend himself. The truth may never come out.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "By the way, disobeying the dispatcher and following him isn't a crime. Pigheaded to be sure, but not a crime" He did not disobey the dispatcher because the dispatcher never gave a lawful order. They only said that they don't need him to do that. They never said, "Stop following him."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is not illegal to follow someone. If it were, PIs would not be in business. It is not illegal to ask any other person a question or otherwise initiate verbal contact.> It is illegal (usually) to shoot and kill someone. Recklessly OR intentionally. <The case rests on who initiated physical contact first.> Actually, it rests on whether one buys the idea that it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger from a kid armed with skittles. <One side believes Zimmerman was the one to physically contact/detain/whatever Trayvon first. The other side believes that Trayvon was somehow offended by Zimmerman's verbal contact and attacked Zimmerman, forcing Zimmerman to defend himself.> But here's the difference. The former side has ONLY the word of the shooter himself. The latter has the phone calls that let us know that a). Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, b). Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman, c). Martin was calling out for help. So what's the more logical scenario? That contact was initiated by the guy who was actively pursuing the other, or by the guy who was trying to get away from the other, and cried out for help after contact took place? Logic, please. <The truth may never come out. > That's pretty lame. But that's what trials are for.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Actually, it rests on whether one buys the idea that it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger from a kid armed with skittles." No, actually, if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman for merely asking questions and following him, that is going to be a good self-defense defense. We don't know what happened and probably never know what happened, but one thing is for sure that Zimmerman has already been convicted in the press.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But here's the difference. The former side has ONLY the word of the shooter himself." Wrong. <a href="http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation" target="_blank">http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dp...ercation</a> "“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John." Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater. He was on the bottom being beaten. This is not an open and shut case. I don't know for sure what happened and neither do you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Actually, it rests on whether one buys the idea that it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger from a kid armed with skittles.">> <No, actually, if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman for merely asking questions and following him, that is going to be a good self-defense defense.> Is it logical to believe a 140-pound kid who was trying to get away from a much larger man - ARMED WITH A GUN - would have attacked him? Why no. No, it is not. <"“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John."> That was from Feb. 27. This guy also claims "I told him to stop," which means he's claiming to have been present at the scene, yet the police say no one else was. So where has this guy been since Feb. 27? Did he know Zimmerman? Why hasn't the Sanford PD trotted him out as corroboration? It's quite suspicious to me. All the other witnesses say it was Martin calling for help, though the police tried to "correct" one witness into saying it was Zimmerman. And how does a 140 pound kid get on top of an armed man who outweighs him by 100 pounds? I also did a google search of that quote, and other than the Fox site, what came up were sites like davidduke.com, and whitecivilrights.com <This is not an open and shut case. I don't know for sure what happened and neither do you.> Again, that's what trials are for. But there needs to BE a trial.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Couldn't he be tried and let the court use the trial as a way of further defining or setting precedent for what constitutes self-defense? The evidence seems to show that Zimmerman sought out the confrontation, not that he was attacked or assaulted. I don't think that the law applies if you go seeking trouble. If a gang member goes to a place where he knows a rival gang member will be in order to provoke a confrontation, then claims that he killed the rival because his life was in danger would he be protected? I don't think that the case hinges on self defense. I think it hinges on whether or not Zimmerman pursued the victim in order to confront him. The 911 recordings show that he was putting himself in harm's way and seeking the confrontation.
