199 replies to this topic

[Todd Gambrel]

The problem is that George Zimmerman was a responsible individual until he killed someone. Hell, he was a model citizen, defending his neighborhood and watching out for others. Then he killed an innocent kid because he's a human being, and most of us are emotional and flawed. Even those of us who think we're awesome are still flawed. There's a vanity in gun ownership - none of us believe we're one of those people that would ever draw our gun in a situation where we shouldn't. But you never really know. In the same way grown men avoid teenage girl sleepovers, I think most everyone should avoid owning a gun. Instead there's a culture where the paranoid and overly aggressive get the lion share of guns. It's a terrible idea, but I've come to accept that loads of gun deaths are part of what America is. Same as screwed up politics, shitty public services and food that makes you fat.

Playing devil's advocate here.....proof? The kid did not have any weapons on him that I know of, but that doesn't mean he was innocent. There hasn't been a trial yet and everyone is assuming Zimmerman is lying.

Not the America I was taught to believe in. It is very possible that Zimmerman is every bit the scumbag you say he is, but until it is proved, Zimmerman is innocent.

I think that's an extreme analogy, Todd. In the context of this discussion, I took Ogul's comment to mean that if you initiate the physical confrontation the "standing your ground" defense is no longer valid. It doesn't make you guilty by default, but you can't claim to be an unsuspecting assault victim.

If he initiated the physical confrontation, I 100% agree with you. We have no proof he did. Just following him does not initiate PHYSICAL confrontation.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 23 March 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[Ricardo_C]

Well, consider what we do know: Zimmerman thought Martin was acting suspicious, so he tailed him. He did the reasonable thing and called 911, who told him to stand down. Instead, he sought a confrontation that ultimately left Martin dead.

I'm not handing out torches and pitchforks, but based only on the undisputed known facts so far, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman.

[Johnny Henning]

You cannot claim self-defense if you confront someone without clear cause and it leads to a fight. Even by the wording of the law, Zimmerman would be considered the aggressor in this situation because there is no reasonable way he could claim Martin was committing a crime when he confronted him. "Acting suspicious" is not enough cause which is why it should've been going to a jury from the beginning. The fact the police just ignored it and let Zimmerman go is more damning.

Who can argue that this case was so cut and dried that the police should have immediately believed and released Zimmerman with no follow up?

That's central to the wording of the statute as well. Since Martin was there legally and definitely was not trespassing, any confrontation would be deemed unreasonable at the outset and everything that happens after that falls upon Zimmerman's shoulders, and I imagine the grand jury will decide that way as well.

[David Chapman]

Playing devil's advocate here.....proof? The kid did not have any weapons on him that I know of, but that doesn't mean he was innocent. There hasn't been a trial yet and everyone is assuming Zimmerman is lying.

Try reading the story linked to in the OP. Zimmerman claimed he was attacked, but Martin's girlfriend heard Martin be surprised to be confronted before he was shot. The call log on his phone should confirm this. There is also no evidence that Martin was committing a crime when he was shot - does he not also get the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt?

[Chewy Sun]

Playing devil's advocate here.....proof? The kid did not have any weapons on him that I know of, but that doesn't mean he was innocent. There hasn't been a trial yet and everyone is assuming Zimmerman is lying.

Not the America I was taught to believe in. It is very possible that Zimmerman is every bit the scumbag you say he is, but until it is proved, Zimmerman is innocent.

If he initiated the physical confrontation, I 100% agree with you. We have no proof he did. Just following him does not initiate PHYSICAL confrontation.

In the court of public opinion, a person who's confirmed to have done stupid shit, will be presumed to continue to do stupid shit, even if that guy says he didn't do said stupid shit.

We don't have definitive evidence that Martin or Zimmerman started the fight, we just know that a fight occurred. We also definitively know that regardless of self defense law, we all know that Martin was in the right (morally, not legally), because when you're walking through a neighborhood and some strange guy follows you tells you to stop and confronts you, you run away and/or fight to get away. There's no way around that regardless of who started the scuffle, Martin's actions were righteous. So innocent may be proven later, but Martin was righteous in his actions.

So we do have evidence that Zimmerman is a moron, and he went and confronted someone he stalked, and did so armed.....so it is not much of a stretch to assume guilt, but at the very least (the outrageous part), the police appeared to have done a poor job investigating a death, and the combination of the police and prosecutor's seeming incompetance, we as a society demands that someone spends more time to figure shit out, because by any normal circumstance, there has been evidence enough on the the 911 tape, that Zimmerman deserves to get charged, or at least his story of self defense needs to be confirmed better than just by his words.



Chewy............................................................ you have bend a lot of facts around not to see that Zimmerman at least must be investigated better

[Johnny Henning]

That's the salient point. Even if a fight occurred, Zimmerman would still not be protected under the law. The people who claim the "stand your ground" law does NOT protect Zimmerman are actually right: http://www.leg.state.../0776/0776.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

As the legislator who drafted the statute states, the moment Zimmerman disobeyed instructions from 911 to stop following Martin, then he became the aggressor. At that point, the protection for his actions changed radically. The moment he confronts Martin, he can't simply shoot in self-defense even if the boy took a swing at him. He had to first exhaust "every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force" and certainly even a rookie officer could presume that Zimmerman did not "in good faith: withdraw from physical contact or indicate to Martin that he wished to do so."

On top of that, when you have a handgun and the other person is a teenager without one, you can't make the case that you are the one in "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm."

And this only makes sense. Otherwise, like Jim pointed out earlier, it would protect an armed man who chases a young man down the street, confronts him and then shoots him when he, naturally, responds aggressively to protect himself and his rights.

On top of this, throughout the statute, it makes clear that Martin would have to have been reasonably suspected of a specific crime - unlawful entry or trespassing. Zimmerman could not simply say the kid was acting suspicious, but he would have to specifically state what he thought Martin was doing that justified the confrontation. Running from an angry and armed pursuer is not "suspicious."

The real idiots in this have to be the police who, apparently, are completely unfamiliar with what the statute actually lays out. As far as Zimmerman, he's still free and probably still carries a gun, though at this point, I think it's more likely he'd use it on himself than anyone else.

[Rory Abel]

That's the salient point. Even if a fight occurred, Zimmerman would still not be protected under the law. The people who claim the "stand your ground" law does NOT protect Zimmerman are actually right: http://www.leg.state.../0776/0776.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

I'm a little confused on what this statute actually does then. Wasn't the point that you didn't need to attempt to withdraw, hence standing your ground?

[Johnny Henning]

It simply eliminates the duty to retreat if you and/or someone else are attacked or to confront someone who is unquestionably in the act of committing a serious crime.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
---

...(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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 to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony...

---

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The law simply protects your right to use force or deadly force to fight for your life, your property or to directly defend other's life and property WHEN THERE IS A DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS THREAT - not simply out of wild suspicion.

It's the misunderstanding of the law that is the real problem far more than the actual wording of it. Now, Zimmerman can claim anything he wants and he doesn't have to explain why he thought Martin was suspicious, but if a prosecutor shows that Martin was there lawfully, that there was no reason to suspect he was committing a crime, he was unarmed and no real threat to Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman pursued Martin while the young man tried to get away from him, I doubt taking the 5th would save Zimmerman from a conviction for premeditated murder.

Not even manslaughter, this should be a murder case.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

I think that's an extreme analogy, Todd. In the context of this discussion, I took Ogul's comment to mean that if you initiate the physical confrontation the "standing your ground" defense is no longer valid. It doesn't make you guilty by default, but you can't claim to be an unsuspecting assault victim.

Yeah, it's the difference between a white person walking through a rough neighbourhood and being hassled by a black or latino gang, and a white person walking through a rough neighbourhood wearing a sign that says I HATE BLACKS and getting hassled.

[al-x]

Hello:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama spoke in unusually personal terms Friday about the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Florida, a case that has roiled civil rights activists and a suburban Orlando community. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said, vowing to "get to the bottom of what happened."

Obama expressed sympathy for the parents of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., a suburb of Orlando, by a neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense.

"I can only imagine what these parents are going through, and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids," Obama said, calling the case a "tragedy."

The nation's first black president aimed his message at Martin's parents, saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans take this with the seriousness that it deserves, and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened."

Obama said that "every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and everybody pulls together, federal state and local, to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened."

Martin's parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, thanked Obama for his support, saying in a statement the president's words "touched us deeply and made us wonder: If his son looked like Trayvon and wore a hoodie, would he be suspicious too?"

Obama brought his voice to an issue that is sensitive in Florida, a large and diverse state that plays an influential role in presidential elections. The Orlando area in central Florida is particularly important, acting as a bellwether for statewide elections.

Republican presidential candidates weighed in after Obama spoke. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called the shooting "horrible case" and referred to Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight.

Santorum said: "Stand your ground is not doing what this man did."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a statement after Obama spoke that read: "What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity."

The Justice Department and FBI have opened a civil rights investigation, and a grand jury is considering whether to charge George Zimmerman, who acknowledged shooting the teen but said it was in self-defense. Martin's parents, civil rights activists and others who have rallied to the cause say they won't be satisfied until Zimmerman is arrested.

Police Chief Bill Lee stepped down temporarily this week to try to cool the building anger that his department had not arrested Zimmerman. Hours later, Gov. Rick Scott announced that the local state attorney, Norman Wolfinger, had recused himself from the case in hopes of "toning down the rhetoric" surrounding it.

Martin was returning from a trip to a convenience store when Zimmerman started following him, telling police dispatchers he looked suspicious. At some point, the two got into a fight, and Zimmerman pulled out his gun.

Zimmerman told police Martin attacked him after he had given up on chasing the teenager and was returning to his sport utility vehicle.

Obama cautioned before speaking that he must "be careful so we're not impairing any investigation." But he said he was glad the Justice Department was investigating and that Florida officials had formed the task force.

"I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how did something like this happen, and that means we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident," Obama said.

The case resonates with many black Americans, a key voting group during Obama's 2008 election, who see it as yet another example of bias toward blacks. Civil rights groups have held rallies in Florida and New York, saying the shooting was unjustified. Of Sanford's 53,000 residents, 57 percent are white and 30 percent are black.

Obama himself has tried to downplay race, as he did early in his term after the controversial arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a black Harvard University professor, by a white police sergeant in Cambridge, Mass.

Gates was arrested in his own home after the police sergeant arrived to investigate a possible burglary. The charges were dropped, but Obama said the police had "acted stupidly," breathing life into a lingering debate. The president said later he should have expressed his concerns with different language and invited both Gates and Sgt. James Crowley to the White House for a beer.


(Article from AP)


Al...

[Johnny Henning]

Civil rights investigation? That opens a whole other can of worms completely unrelated to the state law that's gotten all the attention. I think it would be harder to prove that Zimmerman committed a hate crime than simple and direct murder - which wouldn't be easy considering how the local authorities already messed it up.

Zimmerman told police Martin attacked him after he had given up on chasing the teenager and was returning to his sport utility vehicle.

First time I've read this detail. Certainly, that seems likely to be proven untrue.

[Ogul]

What? That makes no sense. So if a woman walks into a meth lab and someone threatens her, she can't claim self defense because she deliberately walked into the meth lab?

She shouldn't be able to, no. At the very least is she had entered the Meth lab without permission it would be trespassing, and if she did it with the intent to purchase drugs then it would be a felony, and killing while in the process of committing a felony is always murder.

Your comment is like saying women with tight skirts can't claim rape because they were asking for it.

That's stupid.

Not the America I was taught to believe in. It is very possible that Zimmerman is every bit the scumbag you say he is, but until it is proved, Zimmerman is innocent.

I actually agree. The problem here though isn't that Zimmerman hasn't been strung up yet, it's that he hasn't been arrested yet. He should be waiting in a jail cell until his guilt, or innocence, has been determined.

If he initiated the physical confrontation, I 100% agree with you. We have no proof he did. Just following him does not initiate PHYSICAL confrontation.

He was chasing the kid in an aggressive manner, if he had not been the two never would have come into conflict.

[Johnny Henning]

He was chasing the kid in an aggressive manner, if he had not been the two never would have come into conflict.

Yeah, again, that's the major thing. The law doesn't apply if you go after the person. At that point, you become the aggressor. It's not like he was in the right up until he pulled the trigger.

[Arjan Dirkse]

You can ban all guns without the second amendment being a concern. It says "the right to bear arms" - not firearms.

[Patrick A]

Yeah, ultimately what is (or should) hang this guy up is that he got out of his SUV and went after the kid. To Todds point, it's more like the woman in his example chased the meth lab down the street and then tried to set fire to it.

[Johnny Henning]

Yeah, ultimately what is (or should) hang this guy up is that he got out of his SUV and went after the kid. To Todds point, it's more like the woman in his example chased the meth lab down the street and then tried to set fire to it.

And then it turns out to be an ice cream truck - not a meth lab at all.

And then the police let her go because it is so hard to tell the difference between an ice cream truck and a meth lab.

I mean, it coulda been a meth lab, right?

[David Chapman]

And then it turns out to be an ice cream truck - not a meth lab at all.

And then the police let her go because it is so hard to tell the difference between an ice cream truck and a meth lab.

I mean, it coulda been a meth lab, right?

I don't know. Was the ice cream truck black?

[Ogul]

To be fair, I would be a bit suspicious of a black ice cream truck.

[Johnny Henning]

Getting a bit more of Zimmerman's side of the story:

http://www.nydailyne...ksEnabled=false

George Zimmerman told police he shot Trayvon Martin after the teenager decked him with a single punch, repeatedly smashed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, according to new reports Monday.

As national outrage continued to grow in the case - there were more than a dozen marches and rallies Monday - cops leaked Zimmerman’s side of the story to show why they didn’t arrest him.

Zimmerman, a self-styled neighborhood watchman, spotted Martin leaving his father’s fiance’s house in an Orlando-area gated community around 7 p.m. on Feb 26. and decided to follow him because he thought the boy looked suspicious.

Trayvon was staying with his dad in Sanford because he had been suspended for ten days from Krop High School in Miami for having an empty marijuana baggie, ABC News reported.

The 17-year-old was wearing a hoodie in the drizzle and talking to his 16-year-old girlfriend on the phone.

She has said she heard Martin ask Zimmerman “why are you following me?” before the sounds of scuffle and the line going dead. Phone records corroborate that she was talking to him just before he died.

Zimmerman’s version, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel and ABC News, is that he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear.

Zimmerman told police the boy asked him if he had a problem, and when Zimmerman said no, Trayvon said something like, "well, you do now," and punched him in the nose.

Zimmerman says he fell to the ground and Trayvon jumped on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.

Police arrived two minutes later.

According to the police report, Trayvon was face down in the grass with his hands beneath his body.

Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass “as if he had been laying on his back on the ground,” Officer Timothy Smith wrote in the police report.

Smith said Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.

“I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me,” Zimmerman told firefighters who were giving him first aid, Smith said.

Zimmerman was taken to the police station and interviewed, then let go.

At least one witness corroborated his story, telling cops he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, punching him....

Not an open and shut case, for sure.

[Chris D]

Not an open and shut case, for sure.

Certainly not. I kind of feel that the media has been irresponsible with the way they've presented the case. For example, this is the first article I've read that states that Zimmerman was bleeding and that some sort of physical altercation undoubtedly occurred. There's no real way of knowing who really started that fight, but it's certainly understandable from my point of view, with my limited understanding of what happened, why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman (it's kind of a natural reaction when you realize some stranger is stalking you). Zimmerman put himself and Martin in a terrible situation with stupid, reckless, unnecessary behavior.