Quote :

"Like the Rodney King trail? oh wait..."

Hence the part of my post you didn't quote.

[Edited on April 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM. Reason : -]

4/21/2012 8:48:29 PM

TRAIL

4/21/2012 10:38:51 PM

The law is clearly not working:

Quote :

"Like Zimmerman, Alexander held a carry permit. Unlike him, she did not injure or kill anyone, and the aggression against her is well documented. Yet she was arrested immediately, and she potentially faces a longer prison sentence. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, which is punishable by a sentence up to life. But given the known facts of the case, he is more likely to be convicted of manslaughter (assuming he is convicted), which has a maximum penalty of 15 years. Notably, the same prosecutor who overcharged Zimmerman, Angela Corey, is the one who threw the book at Alexander. There are two major issues here: whether Alexander's use of force was justified under Florida's law and whether, assuming it wasn't, a 20-year prison sentence is just punishment given the circumstances. The answer to the first question seems to be yes, and the answer to the second one is certainly no. While the disparate treatment of Alexander (who is black) and Zimmerman (who is Hispanic) might suggest racial bias, FAMM notes another Florida case involving a white man, Orville Lee Wollard, who received a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for firing a warning shot in his own home "to chase off a young man who had been abusing his teenage daughter." Wollard rejected a plea deal that involved five years of probation because he believed his actions were lawful. A jury disagreed, apparently because he was not allowed to testify about the assailant's history of violence against his daughter. The judge who imposed the sentence called it "clearly excessive" but said, "I am duty-bound to apply the law as it has been enacted by the legislature." "

Hard to imagine, but it seems if Zimm had fired a warning shot instead of killing Martin, he might have been arrested immediately.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/25/20-years-for-standing-her-ground-against

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason : lnk]

4/26/2012 10:59:55 AM

Remind me not to own a gun in Florida.

4/26/2012 11:35:05 AM

Still, the biggest question and ambiguity here is how can a person claim self-defense when they pursued and initiated the dispute? Isn't more likely that Zmans wounds from the deceased were a result of the victim acting in self-defense upon Zman?

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM. Reason : arkansas little rock]

4/26/2012 12:35:51 PM

That would appear to be the deciding factor. Here, at least, if you initiate a conflict, you forfeit your right to use lethal force unless you attempt to leave the altercation.

4/26/2012 1:10:40 PM

^^^^ This is one of those many stupid things about the way self defense law is interpreted. In some states firing a weapon is using deadly force, regardless of whether it was a "warning shot" or otherwise. The thinking goes that if you did not feel that your life was in such imminent danger that you did not need to actually shoot your attacker, then you equally did not feel your life was in such danger as to require the use of deadly force, and therefore did not have a right to use deadly force, and therefore have committed a crime. This is why most self defense instructors will tell you that if you draw your gun, it had better be because you plan on shooting that gun, and if you shoot that gun, it had better be at your attacker.

The argument for this sort of interpretation of the law is that warning shots are dangerous (and they are, they violate rule 4 of firearms safety: "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.") and allowing warning shots in situations where people feel threatened would increase the number of people accidentally injured by stay / unaimed bullets. In both the cited cases, the people involved would have been better off (legally) shooting their attacker.

The big problem is this interpretation is usually applied inconsistently and prosecution will vary from place to place. For instance in North Carolina here's someone who wasn't arrested:

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/deputies-business-owner-shot-man-foot-during-break/nLfNX/

and in New Hampshire, someone who was :

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/?test=latestnews

^, ^^

Asked and answered previously. Someone following you is not legal justification to assault them. That's why this entire case pretty much hinges on who threw the first punch.

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM. Reason : sdfg]

4/26/2012 1:20:55 PM

I bet that a lot of the hard to understand recordings of this incident will be inadmissible.

4/26/2012 2:34:28 PM

Quote :

"There are two major issues here: whether Alexander's use of force was justified under Florida's law and whether, assuming it wasn't, a 20-year prison sentence is just punishment given the circumstances. The answer to the first question seems to be yes, and the answer to the second one is certainly no. "

Seems unconstitutional via VIII amendment.

4/26/2012 3:11:54 PM

Quote :

"Still, the biggest question and ambiguity here is how can a person claim self-defense when they pursued and initiated the dispute? Isn't more likely that Zmans wounds from the deceased were a result of the victim acting in self-defense upon Zman?"

Well considering that the lead investigator testified under oath that there is no evidence to prove that Zimmerman did either of these things, it might not be that hard.

4/26/2012 4:04:33 PM

so, following someone in your car is not "pursuing someone." Getting out of your car and following them on foot, as ZIMMERMAN has claimed he did, is not "pursuing someone?"

most reasonable people will say that following someone, intentionally so, would be "initiating" the situation. why? simple: because if Zimmerman had stayed in his fucking car, then the confrontation never occurs. I know you'll counter with "if Trayvon hadn't run, then the confrontation wouldn't have occurred," but even THAT isn't a guarantee. And even if it were, it's still not as reasonable as the alternative. It's completely absurd to say "don't have a fight or flight response when someone is following you in the dark in a car in a neighborhood that you are unfamiliar with." That is pure lunacy. However, "if you're not a cop, then don't chase people down as if you were a cop" is absolutely a reasonable and intelligent statement.

4/26/2012 10:11:21 PM

Initiated the situation? The situation was not initiated until it became physical. Following someone or even yelling racial slurs at them is not justification for physical violence.

The only justification for physical violence is a reasonable belief they were going to get violent with you, such as if they had already thrown the first punch.

4/26/2012 10:38:45 PM

Quote :

"The situation was not initiated until it became physical."

I disagree. It's patently obvious that if Zimmerman stays in his car, Trayvon runs away, and there is no altercation. Now, Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal by getting out of his car, but you've got to be completely ignoring all bits of spatial logic and reasoning to think that the altercation between to rows of buildings, hundreds of feet away from the road, can possibly occur with zimmerman in his car and trayvon between the buildings.

I don't think anyone here is saying that being followed is a justification for physical violence. But I think people are saying that Zimmerman's actions, legal or not, led to the altercation, and that it is a reasonable thing to say that he should have stayed in the car. So reasonable, in fact, that it's precisely what the 911 operator told him to do.

Moreover, surely you can agree that following someone could reasonably trigger a fight-or-flight response from the "prey", which, while not justified legally, is entirely understandable and reasonable, thus giving even more reason that zimmerman should have stayed in his car

4/26/2012 10:50:31 PM

Quote :

"The only justification for physical violence is a reasonable belief they were going to get violent with you, such as if they had already thrown the first punch."

Or, someone gets out of their vehicle to keep following you even after you've asked them to stop.

4/26/2012 11:25:01 PM

^ exactly. FL law says you have no duty to retreat, but Trayvon did it anyway. There certainly are situations where Martin could have thrown the first punch and be legally justified in doing so, especially given that he was trying to get away from his perceived assailant

4/27/2012 8:48:58 AM

Zimm could have been yelling about how he was going to assault and kill Martin, leading Martin to initiate physical violence. But we have no evidence of this. All we have is one individual following another. The solution to this problem is quite easy: had Martin kept walking, got home, and called the police, then no altercation would have occurred. If Martin feared Zimm was going to attack him, then turning and walking back to within fighting distance of Zimm is not a reasonable way to avoid the physical assault. As such, there is no question Martin is in all reasonableness responsible for the confrontation, as he stopped being prey when he turned and hunted down Zimmerman. Of course, someone confronting you is yet again not grounds to use physical violence. We would like to know who threw the first punch, and we have only one living witness.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM. Reason : Good point disco_stu]

4/27/2012 10:14:24 AM

Quote :

"There is no question what started the fight. Martin got angry at being followed and decided to confront Zimmerman."

No question? That's some pretty bald-faced speculation right there.

4/27/2012 10:19:20 AM

Quote :

"The only justification for physical violence is a reasonable belief they were going to get violent with you, such as if they had already thrown the first punch. "

I think that any reasonable person that was being followed by some stranger in their car, and then chased on foot by that stranger would be smart to assume that person meant to do them harm. I also don't think it's as simple as who threw the first punch...

I think you have to consider how the situation was escalated into physical violence. It's simply foolish to ignore the circumstances which led up to the confrontation, regardless of who initiated the fight.

4/27/2012 12:14:28 PM

Quote :

"The solution to this problem is quite easy: had Martin kept walking, got home, and called the police, then no altercation would have occurred."

The solution would actually have been Zimmerman not stalking and shooting Martin dead. Oh wait, what he was doing was "standing his ground" whereas Martin was asking to be shot dead by not taking off running. Maybe if Zimmerman had been wearing a hoodie, Martin would have realized the danger he was in.

And geez, there's no evidence whatsoever that points to Martin being the initiator more than Zimmerman. Apparently it's so easy to believe that a teenager walking home with skittles would start attacking an armed neighborhood watchman for following him. But it's so hard to believe that an armed neighborhood watchman who stalked and followed this teenager, quite obviously because he was black, might shove him or harass him once catching up.

And yeah, he did it because Martin's black. White kids wear hoodies and walk around with skittles too, how many of those has Zimmerman followed and shot? Are there seriously no teenagers in his neighborhood, usually?

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2012 12:50:39 PM

Quote :

"I think you have to consider how the situation was escalated into physical violence. It's simply foolish to ignore the circumstances which led up to the confrontation, regardless of who initiated the fight."

Except the only thing the law cares about for justification of self defense is who escalated first. Yes, Zimmerman was aggressive in that he followed Martin, but that alone isn't legal justification for physical violence, just like someone coming up to you in a bar and opining on your sexual practices isn't legal justification for you to punch him, even if his intention in insulting you was to start a fight. What matters is who escalated to physical violence, either directly by literally throwing a punch, or by physically threatening bodily harm. Again, this is why self defense laws are so murky. You can't attack someone for following you, even if they creep you out, even if it's a dark back alley in a down you don't know and they're laughing maniacally behind you. You can however stop and confront them and tell them to stop following you and to stay away from you, and this is where it gets murky. Depending on their next action, you might be fully justified in defending yourself up to and including lethal force. If Martin stopped and told Zimmerman to leave him alone, and Zimmerman kept coming, Martin now has a valid claim of self defense, including physical violence. That's why what actually happened at the altercation is so important.

Now, as for whether Zimmerman committed any crime, even if self defense was legally justified, that all depends on the interpretation of the Stand Your Ground law. The law grants immunity from prosecution of the use of force, but does it also grant immunity from say an involuntary manslaughter charge, where in legal actions caused the unintentional yet foreseeable death of another? I'm not a lawyer and I can't say, but I would certainly argue that such a charge would be reasonable, given what we know of the facts. And I'd argue since the involuntary manslaughter charge explicitly covers otherwise legal acts, that SYG doesn't protect from prosecution in that case. Of course, the defense would likely argue that such circuitous prosecution is exactly what SYG was designed to inhibit, and thus an involuntary manslaughter charge violates the spirit of the law, and now were into how we get legalese so tangled so as to cover every possible interpretation of every aspect of a sentence.

Quote :

"And yeah, he did it because Martin's black. White kids wear hoodies and walk around with skittles too, how many of those has Zimmerman followed and shot?"

Given Zimmerman's long history of calling 911 in his role as a neighborhood watchman, and given that some of those calls have lead to honest arrests, and given that none of those previous calls ever involved a fatal shooting (or as far as I'm aware, even a physical confrontation), unless you're going to argue that he's never encountered a black kid in any of those events, I'd say that Zimmerman doesn't make it a habit of "stalking and shooting" black kids in hoodies.


[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 1:06 PM. Reason : fdhgfh]

4/27/2012 1:01:56 PM

Str8Foolish, to repeat myself again, I have no trouble believing Zimmerman was the one who got violent first. aaronburro was suggesting we should hold Zimmerman morally responsible for the act of getting out of his car, as there couldn't have been a fight if he didn't do that. Well, Martin is similarly morally responsible for the act of turning to confront Zimmerman rather than continuing home. But neither individual had a justification for getting violent. As such, whichever one did get violent first, was a criminal; be he Hispanic or Black. But I have no idea which one was a criminal. It depends on who threw the first punch. But we have only one surviving witness. The only thing we know for sure is they were both idiots.

^ You are mistaken about the law. SYG grants no immunity at all from prosecution beyond a self defense hearing, which should have no bearing upon guilt or innocence. The only change is the duty to retreat when it seems violence may be imminent, which does not apply in this case because if you believe Zimmerman's claim he reasonably feared for his life then you will most likely also accept his claim that he had no indication he was about to be attacked until he was in no position to retreat.

For example, I keep harping on who got violent first, because that is what matters with the SYG law. However, let us pretend we have video of the altercation and it is clear that after a prolonged verbal argument Martin sucker punched Zimmerman down and began trying to physically kill him. With a duty to retreat, it is reasonable for Zimmerman to still go to prison for killing Martin, as once Martin stopped walking and began arguing with Zimmerman it became reasonable to believe things might escalate, so Zimmerman at that instant had a duty to try running away.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/27/2012 2:31:45 PM

Quote :

"The solution to this problem is quite easy: had Martin kept walking, got home, and called the police, then no altercation would have occurred."

not even close. The solution is even easier: had Zimmerman stayed in his car, like the dispatcher said, then no altercation could possibly have occurred.

Quote :

"If Martin feared Zimm was going to attack him, then turning and walking back to within fighting distance of Zimm is not a reasonable way to avoid the physical assault."

Where the heck are you getting this from? Where are you deriving that this is what Martin did?

Quote :

"Yes, Zimmerman was aggressive in that he followed Martin, but that alone isn't legal justification for physical violence"

In FL, it might be, especially if Martin felt he was in danger of being harmed. After all, that's the same reason that could be used to justify self-defense for Zimmerman. Being followed at night by someone you don't know who then gets out of his car and chases you on foot after you try to run away should CERTAINLY be reason to think you are in danger of being harmed.

Quote :

"Well, Martin is similarly morally responsible for the act of turning to confront Zimmerman rather than continuing home."

Again, source, please. Zimmerman claims he was jumped, but you'll forgive me if I am not so quick to trust his word, especially when he says he was jumped trying to find a street sign to know where he was in a neighborhood he regularly "patrols".

4/27/2012 3:05:28 PM

Quote :

"Except the only thing the law cares about for justification of self defense is who escalated first."

So...

It seems as if the definition of escalation is what's really being debated here. The law certainly doesn't define it that I know of...
Some seem to to define it as a physical escalation.
I don't. I think there are plenty of aggressive postures one might take thereby escalating a situation that don't involve touching another person. I also think that as a gun carrier, the onus is on you to not escalate a situation. I mean....you can't pick fights with people, and then shoot them if they fight back.

Again, it seems as if Zimmerman is being granted the ability to stand his ground when he felt threatened, whereas Martin is not.

4/27/2012 3:27:55 PM

Quote :

"not even close. The solution is even easier: had Zimmerman stayed in his car, like the dispatcher said, then no altercation could possibly have occurred."

So what? And Martin could have run home screaming 'rape'. Thanks to SYG it was not a crime to get out of the car and it was not a crime to turn and confront. They both had a right to be there. Well, actually, neither had a right to be there, as they were both trespassing

Quote :

"Again, it seems as if Zimmerman is being granted the ability to stand his ground when he felt threatened, whereas Martin is not."

Only by circumstance. If Martin had been armed, shot Zimmerman to death, and claimed Zimmerman attacked him and was physically trying to kill him, with insufficient evidence to the contrary, then Martin should be the one being set free.

Quote :

" Zimmerman claims he was jumped, but you'll forgive me if I am not so quick to trust his word, especially when he says he was jumped trying to find a street sign to know where he was in a neighborhood he regularly "patrols"."

That the defendant says it is not proof the opposite happened.

Quote :

"Being followed at night by someone you don't know who then gets out of his car and chases you on foot after you try to run away should CERTAINLY be reason to think you are in danger of being harmed."

And you are CERTAINLY wrong. check the article I excerpted above. Florida Women has a restraining order, he breaks into her house, she fires a warning shot, is arrested immediately and charged with 20 years in prison for an unreasonable use of deadly force.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/27/2012 6:00:48 PM

Quote :

"You are mistaken about the law. SYG grants no immunity at all from prosecution beyond a self defense hearing, which should have no bearing upon guilt or innocence."

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it most certainly does in florida. To whit:

Quote :

"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

Quote :

"Being followed at night by someone you don't know who then gets out of his car and chases you on foot after you try to run away should CERTAINLY be reason to think you are in danger of being harmed. "

The trick is self defense laws require you to use the amount of force reasonably necessary to stop the threat. Stand your ground still doesn't remove your duty to use only the amount of force necessary, again from florida law:

(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.

So far the courts are reluctant to classify being creeped out by someone following you as sufficient force to justify attacking them, and they usually require some other act, a verbal threat, a visible weapon, or proceeding to encroach on your personal space after having warned them that if they come closer you will defend yourself.

Quote :

"It seems as if the definition of escalation is what's really being debated here. The law certainly doesn't define it that I know of... Some seem to to define it as a physical escalation. "

The law is murky as I've said and explained over and over in this thread. However, as a general rule the law requires meeting force with force, and views physical escalation as a different from verbal escalation. Of course, even then it all depends on the circumstances. That's why this is so muddy.

Quote :

" I mean....you can't pick fights with people, and then shoot them if they fight back."

Actually, you can, as long as you don't escalate. If I walk up to you in a bar and start insulting you, your date and your mother, no matter how much I might be asking for a punch in the mouth, if you hit me, you're the one that will go to jail. Hell, you and I could get into a fist fight in the parking lot, and if I start running away from the fight and you get a gun out of your car and shoot me, you go to jail, even if I threw the first punch. Now, can I shoot you if you swing at me in the bar because I was insulting you? Probably not, but if you start bashing my head into the concrete, then I probably can.

Quote :

"Again, it seems as if Zimmerman is being granted the ability to stand his ground when he felt threatened, whereas Martin is not. "

As LoneSnark said, it's a matter of the circumstances of the trial.

Quote :

"And you are CERTAINLY wrong. check the article I excerpted above. Florida Women has a restraining order, he breaks into her house, she fires a warning shot, is arrested immediately and charged with 20 years in prison for an unreasonable use of deadly force."

Point of order, per the articles I read on that case, she was in their shared house, where he had a legal right to be (as did she), no break in.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 7:12 PM. Reason : adsf]

4/27/2012 7:11:31 PM

Quote :

"So what?"

So what? we're trying to assign some kind of responsibility. Sounds like you are ducking the very valid point I made.

Quote :

"Only by circumstance. If Martin had been armed, shot Zimmerman to death, and claimed Zimmerman attacked him and was physically trying to kill him, with insufficient evidence to the contrary, then Martin should be the one being set free. "

Sorry, I don't think that's how it works. An affirmative defense requires more than just one guy claiming his side of the story. he needs actual evidence to back it up. otherwise every single person accused of murder would just "claim" self-defense and get off.

Quote :

"That the defendant says it is not proof the opposite happened. "

Very true, but I can't be naive and completely ignore that he may have motivation to lie, especially since the only other witness is dead. Sorry, but credibility of the testimony surely should come in to play, don't you think?

Quote :

"And you are CERTAINLY wrong. check the article I excerpted above. Florida Women has a restraining order, he breaks into her house, she fires a warning shot, is arrested immediately and charged with 20 years in prison for an unreasonable use of deadly force."

And you don't understand why she was charged. It's a totally different circumstance. She felt threatened, but the court ruled, as others in this thread have clearly stated earlier, that not shooting to kill is construed to mean that deadly force was not necessary, otherwise she would have actually used it. I think it's a bit bogus, but that's completely different from "feeling threatened because you are being followed and chased by an unknown person". You are smarter than this.

From the law:

Quote :

"As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant."

that's fucking stupid. You can't arrest or prosecute the person if he uses permitted force? Well, how the fuck do you determine if he used permitted force or not?

Quote :

"So far the courts are reluctant to classify being creeped out by someone following you as sufficient force to justify attacking them"

very true, which is why no one is saying that "being creeped out" is an allowable reason for the use of force, much less deadly force. Rather, I and others are saying that it could reasonably be considered as an escalation by the person doing the following, especially if he is doing so intentionally, and should, at some point, preclude a self-defense claim for the follower. If Martin turned around and headed towards Zimmerman and started attacking him, then fuck him.

What's more likely, is that the two bumped into each other because they had converging paths and Zimmerman knew how to cut him off. Martin is pumped full of adrenaline and has responded to fight-or-flight with flight initially, and then bumps into Zimmerman between the two buildings. He's startled, and he bumps into the person that he can reasonably assume is an attacker. He's engaged the flight response and it didn't work. You ever seen how a cornered animal reacts? At this point, it's just basic biology: flight failed, fight is then selected.

Zimmerman forced TWO fight-or-flight responses in Martin, the first through his intentional actions, the second by accident. That's escalation in my mind, plain and simple. The first response was flight, and if Zimmerman had let it go there, then there is no altercation, no dead Trayvon. But he didn't stop there, he got out of his car, against the advice of 911 dispatcher, and pursued on foot, directly causing the second response. And that's why I, and others, say Zimmerman should be held responsible, because he had one very clear chance not to cause the action, and he chose, frankly, the unreasonable course of action, thereby escalating the situation and causing it in a way that simply would not have occurred otherwise.

Meanwhile, Martin did the right thing by running away. We simply cannot blame Martin for Zimmerman choosing to follow him in his car, because that is absurd. And we can't blame Martin for being creeped out on account of being followed. Likewise, there's no reason to blame someone for retreating from a perceived threat.

IF there is blame to be placed here, it is squarely on the shoulders of Zimmerman for clearly escalating the situation in an unreasonable manner. Remember the evidence: body found in a walkway between two buildings, well away from the street. Remember Zimmerman's claim: that he was jumped from behind while "searching for a street sign" in a neighborhood that he was clearly quite familiar with as he "patrolled" it frequently. How many street signs do you think you are going to find in the walkway between two buildings, well away from the street?

Quote :

"Point of order, per the articles I read on that case, she was in their shared house, where he had a legal right to be (as did she), no break in."

wouldn't that be "point of information?"

4/27/2012 9:37:07 PM

Quote :

"An affirmative defense requires more than just one guy claiming his side of the story. he needs actual evidence to back it up."

He has evidence. His own testimony is strong evidence. An impartial witness would swamp such evidence, but we don't have one. That Zimmerman would lie does not mean he is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote :

"that's fucking stupid. You can't arrest or prosecute the person if he uses permitted force? Well, how the fuck do you determine if he used permitted force or not?"

A judge will determine whether the force was permitted at a pre-trial hearing. Judges have said attacking someone for following you, even for a long time, is not permitted force.

Quote :

"which is why no one is saying that "being creeped out" is an allowable reason for the use of force, much less deadly force. "

But being creeped out for a second time is? Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. To discover that Zimmerman is still following him does not change anything. Zimmerman is STILL not a demonstrated imminent threat to Martin's life or body. You cannot attack people because they startle you. You cannot attack them because your instincts tell you to. Doing so makes you automatically the aggressor and the resultant shooting justified.

4/28/2012 2:16:28 AM

Quote :

"You cannot attack them because your instincts tell you to. Doing so makes you automatically the aggressor and the resultant shooting justified."

This isn't quite true either. Self defense includes a reasonable person provision, precisely because sometimes your instincts are perfectly correct. If you're alone in a dark alley, and someone starts approaching you, and you tell them to stay away from you, but they keep coming forward saying "I'm not going to hurt you", you could make a fairly reasonable case for self defense if you used force. In this case, had Martin confronted Zimmerman and told him to back off, and Zimmerman kept coming, Martin would have a perfectly reasonable claim to self defense if he fought.

Quote :

"And that's why I, and others, say Zimmerman should be held responsible, because he had one very clear chance not to cause the action, and he chose, frankly, the unreasonable course of action, thereby escalating the situation and causing it in a way that simply would not have occurred otherwise. "

Mostly agreed, which is why I said earlier, I can reasonably see a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman. Without knowing more of the circumstances surrounding the final confrontation, he still didn't do anything illegal, nor did he (I think) go into this intending on harming or killing Martin, which makes it not murder. Zimmerman does have responsibility in this case for some of the events that transpired. I just don't think it rises to murder, and from the sound of it, the state is having a hard time proving it even rises to criminal.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but were I the state, I would have gone for the manslaughter charge upfront, arguing that even if it was valid self defense, that the legal actions he took foreseeably resulted in his need for self defense.

On the flip side, it would be perfectly reasonable for the defense to argue that people should have every right to be good citizens and witnesses up to and including following a fleeing person they (reasonably) believe committed a crime without having to fear being held criminally liable if that fleeing person instead decides to attack and the citizen now has to defend themselves.

As I said, a sticky and horrible situation all around.

[Edited on April 28, 2012 at 9:42 AM. Reason : sadf]

4/28/2012 9:33:52 AM

http://nation.foxnews.com/daniel-adkins/2012/04/09/black-male-shoots-unarmed-hispanic-remains-free-media-mum

Quote :

"Taco Bell Shooting Victim was Holding Leash, Not Weapon Victim's sister calling for shooter's arrest Updated: Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 5:12 PM MST Published : Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 3:38 PM MST LAVEEN - Police are saying more about a shooting at a Taco Bell Tuesday night in which one man died. They're also identifying the victim as 29-year-old Daniel Adkins. About 7:30 p.m., a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend ordered food at the Taco Bell drive-thru and were told to pull up while their order was prepared. At the same time, Adkins stepped around a corner into the path of the vehicle and angry words were exchanged between he and the driver. They got into an altercation and Adkins was shot once by the driver. He died at the scene. The driver, a 22-year-old black male, called police but has not been arrested. At first, the couple claimed that Adkins had a metal pipe that he swung at them -- but it turns out he was holding a dog leash with his yellow lab on the other end. Family members want that driver arrested, but he's claiming self-defense. "He needs to be behind bars. I'll never see my brother again," says sister Marina Reyes. "If he felt that my brother was threatening him, he could have easily just rolled up the window and called the cops.""

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Quote :

"Shot 'straight in the heart' The confrontation that would catapult two more families into the middle of the lethal force debate began as the sun dipped below the horizon in Laveen, Arizona, a suburb southwest of Phoenix. It was April 3 -- 37 days after Martin's death in Florida. Daniel Adkins Jr. walked past Taco Bell's drive-thru just as a 22-year-old man pulled around in his SUV to pick up his order. Sitting in the passenger seat was his pregnant fiancée. CNN is withholding the shooter's name because he has not been charged with a crime. A police report describes how the deadly confrontation unfolded. The driver slammed on the brakes, just missing Adkins. The two men exchanged words. The shooter told police that Adkins "air swung" his hands in the direction of the SUV, but acknowledged he never hit him or his vehicle. Still, he said, he was afraid of what Adkins might do with the weapon he believed he was carrying. Although a weapon was never found, the shooter described it as a 3-foot metal pipe or bat. 'Stand Your Ground' law under fire When Adkins lifted his hands in the air again, the driver drew his Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun from his sweatpants. He pointed the barrel at Adkins and racked the slide of the gun, putting a bullet in the chamber. Then he pulled the trigger. Struck in the chest, Adkins fell to the ground, face first, clutching Lady's leash. The lab stayed at her master's side, even as the life drained out of him. The shooter pulled around to the front of the Taco Bell as his fiancée called 911. He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report. While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired, he also said he feared Adkins was trying to hurt him."

I mean, WTF.

You could have stayed in your god damn car and waited on the cops.

This is ENTIRELY different than the Zimmerman case.

There was obviously some kind of physical altercation that caused Trayvon to be shot for whatever reason.

This guy was in the safety of his own car, the other guy was not armed, only swung at his car in the AIR, and the guy just hops out and shoots him.

Now this is a fucking outrage.


The fact that nobody is even talking about this, should be all the evidence that the entire reason anybody cared about the Zimmerman case was because of race.

4/29/2012 6:31:45 PM

Quote :

"Homicide detectives are investigating the incident. At this time, it's unknown whether the driver will face any charges."

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Man-killed-in-Taco-Bell-drive-thru-146050685.html

They haven't even closed the case in the Adkins shooting, that's the main reason you don't see any outrage about this yet.

By the time the Trayvon case hit national news not only had the police closed the case, they held a press conference to assert Zimmerman would never be charged, after performing a pretty halfassed investigation. This is pretty much what started the outrage in the Trayvon case.

Considering the investigation is still pending in th Adkins case, it wouldn't make sense for people to start protesting. The justice system appears to be still working.

4/29/2012 7:33:23 PM

Quote :

"They haven't even closed the case in the Adkins shooting, that's the main reason you don't see any outrage about this yet."

HAHA bull fucking shit.

You don't see any outrage because there wasn't a black victim.

An innocent man was shot, the guy should have been arrested that night. There is obviously some sort of police conspiracy at play here.

4/29/2012 8:11:15 PM

Lol

So you'd rather ignore the reality of the circumstances, the statements and actions of the parents and families, and the statements of the protesters, to manufacture your own presumptions about why all these groups were angry?

4/29/2012 8:32:24 PM

Ignoring the reality of the circumstances?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all night.


The fact is, an unarmed hispanic man was shot by a black and the black community is silent.

A unarmed black kid is shot by a hispanic man and the entire black community is in outrage and claims it isn't about race and only justice.

People bitching about how Zimmerman should have been arrested that night, and blah blah blah.

Well there is more to suggest Zimmerman's was self defense than this guy can claim.

Yet there is no outrage from the blacks about this.

I mean, there is no way in hell they are gonna have a national out cry for one of their own to be arrested no matter what the circumstance is/was.

4/29/2012 8:39:32 PM

Quote :

"They haven't even closed the case in the Adkins shooting, that's the main reason you don't see any outrage about this yet. By the time the Trayvon case hit national news not only had the police closed the case, they held a press conference to assert Zimmerman would never be charged, after performing a pretty halfassed investigation. This is pretty much what started the outrage in the Trayvon case."

I'm not going to let you ignore reality to fuel your racist tirades.

[Edited on April 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2012 8:54:39 PM

Once again, not ignoring it, and the outrage started before the case was ever "closed"

Claiming that Zimmerman should have been arrested that night, and there was a coverup, and little innocent Trayvon was just walking home, and Zimmerman was racist because Trayvon was black, and the only reason he wasn't arrested was because he wasn't black and if Trayvon hadn't been black it wouldn't matter, etc.

Well now we have basically the same case with the races reversed and the black community doesn't care at all.

THAT is the reality that you are too blinded to see.

A case doesn't have to be closed for there to be outrage.

4/29/2012 9:10:54 PM

Sorry, but your view doesn't fit with reality. Just go to page 1 of the chit chat thread, it was made a few days before the police announced they weren't charging.

I was several more days before the main stream media picked it up, then even longer before your favorite people to hate, sharp ton Jackson etc., got involved. These facts of history are pretty well documented. You can't cling to your delusions this time

4/29/2012 9:35:42 PM

Quote :

"By the time the Trayvon case hit national news not only had the police closed the case, they held a press conference to assert Zimmerman would never be charged, "

Do you have a link for this? I don't recall hearing that they had closed the case or held a press conference declaring their intention no to prosecute (I was always under the impression they had just sort of dropped it, or weren't talking and the parents went to the media to put some pressure on), and honestly, I can't stand to wade through the first pages of this thread which essentially amount to Str8tFoolish and pack_bryan having a pissing match over who's the biggest dick on the internet.

4/30/2012 8:52:23 AM

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/05/beating-church-and-brambleton

5/1/2012 9:11:38 PM

Seems less like a bunch of teenage black kids wanting some sick retribution for a kid they don't give a fuck about and more like them trying to act tough in front of their bros and get some kind of cred.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM. Reason : also, fuck that cop if he told the woman to shut up and get in the car]

5/1/2012 9:27:25 PM

That part about the cop doesn't surprise me at all. I've lived in Norfolk, and the cops there are pretty damn callous and disrespectful...even to victims. Even to the point where they treat victims like they've done something wrong

5/2/2012 7:20:42 AM

Quote :

"To discover that Zimmerman is still following him does not change anything."

what about when you see that a guy is now chasing you. reason enough to feel threatened? how fucking far does a guy have to go before you think it's "reasonable" to feel threatened?

Quote :

"You cannot attack people because they startle you."

And my scenario isn't that Martin attacks Zimmerman simply for "startling him."

Quote :

"On the flip side, it would be perfectly reasonable for the defense to argue that people should have every right to be good citizens and witnesses up to and including following a fleeing person they (reasonably) believe committed a crime"

I can almost get behind this, in general, but how in the fuck could anyone begin to argue that Zimmerman had any logical reason to think that Martin had committed a crime?

Quote :

"I mean, WTF. You could have stayed in your god damn car and waited on the cops. This is ENTIRELY different than the Zimmerman case."

So, just because a guy was in a car, that makes some kind of point for you? I want to know what the fuck you are smoking, because it must be some gooooooooood shit.

Quote :

"Well now we have basically the same case with the races reversed and the black community doesn't care at all."

No, we don't. They are not even comparable, except that one guy killed another guy.

5/2/2012 8:12:00 PM

Quote :

"I can almost get behind this, in general, but how in the fuck could anyone begin to argue that Zimmerman had any logical reason to think that Martin had committed a crime? "

Honestly, they probably can't, but as near as I can figure, thanks to the prosecution and media pressure they don't have to, since it's a murder charge, not an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Edit
-------

To clarify that, Florida has the following statute in regards to murder 2:

Quote :

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any: (a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1), (b) Arson, (c) Sexual battery, (d) Robbery, (e) Burglary, (f) Kidnapping, (g) Escape, (h) Aggravated child abuse, (i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, (j) Aircraft piracy, (k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb, (l) Carjacking, (m) Home-invasion robbery, (n) Aggravated stalking, (o) Murder of another human being, (p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or (q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism, by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

(3) doesn't apply because the killing was by Zimmerman, so if they thought that he was engaged in "aggravated stalking" (3n), they would have charged him with murder 1. So to prosecute under (2) the state needs to prove imminently dangerous activity, and a depraved mind. All the defense really needs to argue is that following someone from a distance is not an "imminently dangerous to another", and without any evidence from the prosecution that Zimmerman started the confrontation, I doubt they can pull off "depraved mind". Again, IANAL, but if I were, I don't think I would have gone with a murder 2 charge, unless I had some "Law and Order" change the case in one fell swoop piece of evidence up my sleeve.

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 7:31 AM. Reason : sfg]

5/3/2012 7:08:59 AM

He was just an innocent young black boy who was only holding an ice tea & skittles!



Never forget!

This post has been brought to you by MSNBC, LEAN FORWARD.

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM. Reason : up next: Al Sharpton's Politics Nation... full coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder]

5/3/2012 8:19:53 AM

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/george-zimmermans-disparaging-remarks-about-mexicans-on-myspace/

5/3/2012 8:47:24 AM

I don't find those remarks that disparaging or really meaningful.

It was the comment about his friends not ratting him out that made me o.O .

5/3/2012 7:10:10 PM

anyone who's ever driven through Manassas wouldn't find those comments racist.

5/5/2012 4:25:45 PM

Quote :

"He was just an innocent young black boy who was only holding an ice tea & skittles!"

That's exactly what he was. Zimmerman had no information to indicate otherwise, period.

5/7/2012 2:10:55 PM

^That's not true. He knew that he was a black teenager. So obviously he was on PCP. Zimmerman HAD to use necessary force!

5/7/2012 2:13:08 PM

Quote :

"He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,""

DOESN'T WANT TO RUN OVER DOG....








SHOOTS MAN!

5/7/2012 2:14:30 PM

BREAKING NEWS

Quote :

"A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin. The medical exam, which was taken a day after Zimmerman's February 26 altercation with the unarmed 17-year-old, says Zimmerman suffered a "closed fracture" of his nose, according to two sources who have detailed knowledge of the investigation. "

Obviously the family doctor is racist and falsified the medical report in order to have his Aryan brother aquitted for nabbing an innocent African American boy just strolling down the street eating skittles

5/16/2012 9:07:48 AM