89 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

It is relevant, like Jim points out - if the DA successfully argues that he became the "aggressor" at that point. That the statute was never meant to protect someone who is armed and follows the person that they eventually shoot "in self defense." Then Zimmerman would have to meet the requirements of the section I posted earlier regarding use of force by those who first engage it, and I don't think he will.

If you read the entire statute and law regarding use of force, I think it can be argued strongly that it only applies and was only intended to apply if the person claiming self-defense was clearly the victim of aggressive behavior from the outset. I think Zimmerman's actions certainly were aggressive by any standard and it will be very hard from him to claim Martin attacked him without provocation if he loses the protections afforded to those who are not aggressors.


http://www.usatoday....ting/54216252/1

Sounds like Zimmerman has a very good lawyer. The quotes he gives are brief but well put.

[David Chapman]

I don't think the fact that he was following Trayvon Martin is all that relevant. Unless he's on trial for stalking people or something

It's very relevant, as even Florida law admits a difference between "standing your ground" and "looking for trouble".

EDIT: Johnny, there was a recent ruling on a different case that really opens up a can of worms. A guy caught someone stealing his car stereo; he pursued the thief for half a mile before fatally stabbing him. When the guy attacked the thief with his knife, the thief swung the stereo at him. The judge considered the swing to constitute felony assault, as it was done in the course of committing another crime, and ruled that SYG applied. Which, in a nutshell, makes it legal for civilians to kill anyone committing any crime unless they are unarmed and make no attempt to defend themselves.

Edited by David Chapman, 12 April 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

It's very relevant, as even Florida law admits a difference between "standing your ground" and "looking for trouble".

Has it been proven that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble"?

Arguments like these make me think it's going to be pretty easy for Zimmerman's lawyer to come up with a solid defense. Of course our knee jerk reaction, especially for Europeans, is saying "oh he's a gun crazy, agressive wannabe vigilante". I don't think the jury is going to go along with that sentiment.

[Chris D]

Has it been proven that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble"?

Well, no. That's what trials are for, right?

Edited by Chris D, 13 April 2012 - 03:13 AM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Well, no. That's what trials are for, right?

Of course, it has to be decided during a trial. I'm just saying I haven't seen or heard anything that seemed to give a strong indication that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble".

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 13 April 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[Jim Ohara]

Of course our knee jerk reaction, especially for Europeans, is saying "oh he's a gun crazy, agressive wannabe vigilante". I don't think the jury is going to go along with that sentiment.

The guy followed someone in his car and called the cops on him, and pursued him when it was suggested he didn't need to do so. Why is this so hard to figure out?

[Arjan Dirkse]

Because you don't want to send someone to jail based on sentiments and speculation.

[Jim Ohara]

The dead teenager helps. The fact remains that Martin died because Zimmerman decided to follow him and confront him. If he'd stayed at home or just called the cops and acted like an adult by backing the fuck off Martin would be alive today.

For some reason people seem to forget that Martin was a completely innocent teenager minding his own business. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an innocent person can be murdered and it's a-okay in the eyes of the law.

[Ricardo_C]

The dead teenager helps. The fact remains that Martin died because Zimmerman decided to follow him and confront him. If he'd stayed at home or just called the cops and acted like an adult by backing the fuck off Martin would be alive today.

For some reason people seem to forget that Martin was a completely innocent teenager minding his own business. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an innocent person can be murdered and it's a-okay in the eyes of the law.

Well, let's not bother with a trial, then. Let's just hang the bastard.

[Arjan Dirkse]

The dead teenager helps. The fact remains that Martin died because Zimmerman decided to follow him and confront him. If he'd stayed at home or just called the cops and acted like an adult by backing the fuck off Martin would be alive today.

For some reason people seem to forget that Martin was a completely innocent teenager minding his own business. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an innocent person can be murdered and it's a-okay in the eyes of the law.

Yes, my reasoning is amazing. Thanks...

I agree that this is a tragedy, but I think it's not that obvious wether or not Zimmerman is guilty. Zimmerman seems to be claiming that he had no choice but to shoot Trayvon Martin. He'll need to make the jury believe that Trayvon Martin reacted to being followed by giving Zimmerman such a beating that he had to fear for his life. If he can succesfully make that case, then he is not guilty of murder. If he can't make that case, then it's likely he'll go to jail.

About the following: yes, that was stupid, but should Zimmerman have realized that that in itself could have lead to Trayvon Martin's death? I don't know.

[Will Carper]

How could following a kid with a gun NOT have a dead kid as a potential consequence?

[Christian U]

I feel it is a question you're asking because you already have invested in the idea that racism must have been involved in this specific case, but can't really state outright where it was involved. So you're throwing out these "suggestions" without really taking time to consider the circumstances or the history of events leading up to the shooting and beyond. Also, it is the sort of question you should answer if you're interested. Show me exactly the same circumstances with a white victim? You probably won't find it since every case is the result of very specific interconnected decisions and situations. There are no model cases.

I'm not all that invested in the case, like I said, Jonny. I just told you what I would look at, with this kind of thing, to get an idea of whether there was racism involved. It seems a bit weird that this question doesn't seem to have been answered a thousand times over with everything that's going on.

[Christian U]

How could following a kid with a gun NOT have a dead kid as a potential consequence?

If Zimmermann truly was attacked, I wouldn't blame the kid's death on him, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even if his behaviour was recless.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

In those circumstances could he still be charged with manslaughter?

[Christian U]

In those circumstances could he still be charged with manslaughter?

I have no idea where the Stand Your Ground and whatnot is concerned, but from a common-sense approach... it sort of depends, doesn't it? If he provoked a fight and shot the other guy as soon as he made a move, I'd say oh yes indeed. If he was viciously and unprovokedly attacked and did or would have receive(d) a severe beating, I'd say no, you should be able to defend yourself even if the other guy isn't armed and even if you followed him to make sure he wasn't up to no good. Just because you're following somebody doesn't give them the right to attack you, after all.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Yeah, but there's the question of disproportionate response. And I keep wondering that if Zimmerman was beaten so severely that he was in fear of his life, wouldn't a hospital report have surfaced by now?

[Jim Ohara]

Well, let's not bother with a trial, then. Let's just hang the bastard.

That's the general idea when someone is murdered in cold blood and the killer has a smoking gun in his hands saying 'it was me that shot him'.

[Christian U]

Yeah, but there's the question of disproportionate response.

Absolutely, but that's a tough one to figure out without witnesses. It's not like you actually have to let yourself be beaten half to death before it's justified to defend yourself. Even with a gun, I'd say that if somebody attacks you in earnest, you should be able to use it the moment that happens. Otherwise, it may easily be too late. "Use it" meaning, of course, that you draw the gun and tell the guy to move away and go home really quickly.

And I keep wondering that if Zimmerman was beaten so severely that he was in fear of his life, wouldn't a hospital report have surfaced by now?

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of detail that'll hopefully come out in trial.

Edited by Christian U, 13 April 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Ricardo_C]

That's the general idea when someone is murdered in cold blood and the killer has a smoking gun in his hands saying 'it was me that shot him'.

"Murder" needs to be proven. For that matter, so does "in cold blood". You have a dead kid and a shooter claiming self-defense. However bad it looks for Zimmerman's case, considering the distinct lack of evidence of the assault he cites as justification, he's innocent until proven guilty.

[Todd Gambrel]

The dead teenager helps. The fact remains that Martin died because Zimmerman decided to follow him and confront him. If he'd stayed at home or just called the cops and acted like an adult by backing the fuck off Martin would be alive today.

For some reason people seem to forget that Martin was a completely innocent teenager minding his own business. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an innocent person can be murdered and it's a-okay in the eyes of the law.

Martin died because he approached a man who had stopped following him and began to beat him senseless.

That sentence of mine is what the prosecution has to disprove, because that is currently the story.

Martin wasn't a hardened, dangerous man by any stretch of the imagination but the word innocent doesn't exactly describe him to the T either. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an attacker can punch and slam someone's head into the ground and he's considered to be Saint Peter.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 13 April 2012 - 02:29 PM.