EPTTrayvon Martin 17yo Kid Shot to Death - Page 17
| Forum Index > Closed |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On March 22 2012 13:20 Lockitupv2 wrote: It has good intentions and positive effects, outside of this, it just needs better tuning. The Florida version is very vague others arent. Oh without a doubt I'm sure it has good intentions, it is just the positive effects I'm struggling to see. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
| ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
As a supporter of this type of legislation, I hate that it has been applied to this case and I wonder what the Florida legislature was thinking when they wrote the law this way. The point of the law is that when individuals are in a place where they reasonably believe that they are safe from attack and they have a right to be there then they also have the right to stand their ground when they are attacked if they believe their life or another's life to be in mortal danger. Clearly the man in this case knew he was walking into a dangerous situation (he admits as much on the phone by claiming that the man is up to no good) and thus should not be covered. His options weren't approach the kid or go home and never mention it again; he had already called the police even. | ||
|
Forgottenfrog
United States1268 Posts
| ||
|
Doomwish
438 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:14 Tektos wrote: Oh without a doubt I'm sure it has good intentions, it is just the positive effects I'm struggling to see. How about being able to defend your own life without having to worry about going to prison. If he followed the guy AFTER police dispatch told him not to, he clearly is not protected by SYG. Even the laws' own creator stated this in an interview. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:14 Tektos wrote: Oh without a doubt I'm sure it has good intentions, it is just the positive effects I'm struggling to see. The positive effects are very important. Without this kind of law, it is up to a jury to decide when to allow you to shoot someone who has broken into your home. If you have to run past the intruder to get out, some juries might say "well, you could have gotten out so it isn't self-defense" and others might say "well, you would have been in danger if you tried to run, so you were acting in self-defense even though you maybe could have run." Without this kind of legislation, it leaves self-defense in a very bad place where no one is really sure if they are acting in self-defense or not. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On March 22 2012 13:42 HULKAMANIA wrote: I don't know why I am even surprised that Zimmerman has apologists on the internet, but I am. I can't find the words. Lock that man away for life. I hope his block-mates find his behavior suspicious. This man doesn't have apologists, he has people who understand that he is innocent until proven guilty IN THE COURT OF LAW. Many of us couldn't give a fuck about public opinion. | ||
|
RespectedPuddle
80 Posts
"Run after someone who isn't doing anything to you and shoot them" isn't the same as "Stand Your Ground." Obviously this guy is fucked up, and deserves to be hung by is penis with a rusty fish hook. Who knows, maybe someone will one day see Zimmerman walking on the street looking conveniently "suspicious". | ||
|
Occidental
United States14 Posts
Zimmerman made a terrible decision when he ignored reasonable police instructions to avoid the suspect which led to this whole situation. But really, several scenarios could have occurred after the confrontation and not all condemn Zimmerman to murder. There is a possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman (what Zimmerman says happened). If you were grappling with someone and they are trying to wrest your gun out of your hands shooting them is a tragic but justified action. If this really is what happened I don't see how it could not be called self defense. Now of course it is possible too that Zimmerman tried to rough up Martin and instigated the fight, only to realize his mistake and shoot before his gun could be taken from him. This could have even been done intentionally to try to make the killing seem defensive. My point is that we have no evidence either way and it is possible that Zimmerman, while obviously a dangerous fool, saved his own life by taking Martin's. Until the trial occurs I think it is wrong for people to condemn Zimmerman as a murderer. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
(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. Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case. There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote: The problem is this piece of the law, specifically: (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. Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case. There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:34 Occidental wrote: But really, several scenarios could have occurred after the confrontation and not all condemn Zimmerman to murder. There is a possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman (what Zimmerman says happened). If you were grappling with someone and they are trying to wrest your gun out of your hands shooting them is a tragic but justified action. If this really is what happened I don't see how it could not be called self defense. I am not 100% convinced that this is really self defense. It seems like Zimmerman knew or should have known that approaching someone at night, int he dark, with a weapon would reasonably lead the other person to believe that THEY were being attacked and instigate a fight. To me, approaching someone in a public space with a weapon (especially at night in the dark) is akin to 'fighting words' and should maybe not be protected. If this is in fact what happened........maybe a full acquittal is wrong and so is a conviction for murder. Reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, etc seem like possibilities. It is really a 'catch 22' situation. You don't want to say to the minor 'he approached you with a gun, but if you are scared and fight him then he has the right to kill you' but you also don't want to say to Zimmerman 'if you approach him and he attacks you, you can't do anything about it because you chose to approach him.' I am thinking specifically, what if the minor WAS up to no good and DID have a gun. Then is it self-defense? Zimmerman may have actually believed that his life was in danger. Some of the dissonance we feel here is because we know it probably wasn't (at least as a first impression it doesn't seem that way). If it were clear that his life actually was in danger, we might have less to say about it. But this is something we can only know with hindsight. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10347 Posts
| ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. Can we prove that's how it went down though? I mean if Zimmerman is running after the kid and the kid stops and they talk it out......Zimmerman hasn't done anything wrong. There is nothing about pursuing him that breaks any laws (that I know of). He's just running after someone with his gun. I'm not sure that that is illegal. If you can point to a statute, I'd be very grateful. Kidnapping is defined in florida as: 1)(a) The term “kidnapping” means forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to: 1. Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage. 2. Commit or facilitate commission of any felony. 3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person. 4. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. Can we prove that Zimmerman had any of those intents? Maybe he just wanted to talk to the kid and got scared. Notice its not just that you confine them but you do so with a certain intent. I agree that what happened here seems illegal and wrong. Most (if not all) of the versions of the events SHOULD end with Zimmerman going to jail. I am not sure that the law in Florida though also reaches this conclusion. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote: there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? If it were clear that he broke the law, then the police would have arrested him right away because the law specifically does NOT cover people who are breaking the law. The only reason the police would have let him go is if they believed that there was no evidence that he had committed a crime at any point. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:26 Anytus wrote: The positive effects are very important. Without this kind of law, it is up to a jury to decide when to allow you to shoot someone who has broken into your home. If you have to run past the intruder to get out, some juries might say "well, you could have gotten out so it isn't self-defense" and others might say "well, you would have been in danger if you tried to run, so you were acting in self-defense even though you maybe could have run." Without this kind of legislation, it leaves self-defense in a very bad place where no one is really sure if they are acting in self-defense or not. Actually, it SHOULD be left to your peers, who represent society through the jury process, to decide whether or not it was justifiable, let alone acceptable, that you KILLED another person. If you're so afraid of not being able to defend yourself from a burglar, then pass a law that says "you can defend yourselves from buglars" not you can carry a gun and shoot people in public. Without the jury process, you just have people who might say "well, there's nobody around to dispute whether or not it was self defense" so you'll have assholes running around executing unarmed minors and getting off free. With this kind of legislation, it leaves innocents (and the public in general) in a bad place where no one is really sure whether or not they can go to 7-11 at night without being shot. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:34 Occidental wrote: It seems to me that this could feasibly have been an act of self defense. Because we don't know how the struggle played out it unfortunately comes down to Zimmerman's word. Zimmerman made a terrible decision when he ignored reasonable police instructions to avoid the suspect which led to this whole situation. But really, several scenarios could have occurred after the confrontation and not all condemn Zimmerman to murder. There is a possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman (what Zimmerman says happened). If you were grappling with someone and they are trying to wrest your gun out of your hands shooting them is a tragic but justified action. If this really is what happened I don't see how it could not be called self defense. Now of course it is possible too that Zimmerman tried to rough up Martin and instigated the fight, only to realize his mistake and shoot before his gun could be taken from him. This could have even been done intentionally to try to make the killing seem defensive. My point is that we have no evidence either way and it is possible that Zimmerman, while obviously a dangerous fool, saved his own life by taking Martin's. Until the trial occurs I think it is wrong for people to condemn Zimmerman as a murderer. I think people are forgetting that Zimmerman never mentioned to the police that he was following the kid with a loaded gun. Kind of a crucial detail. He wasn't watching the kid -- he was not a bystander. You don't find yourself shooting somebody by watching them and calling the police. You don't find yourself in "self-defense" because you chase someone down the street -- because you're the offender. I don't think we need to know whose screams those are on the witness phone calls -- doesn't matter. We don't need to know everything that happened between the two -- whether there was a struggle -- doesn't matter. None of it could exonerate Zimmerman, because Zimmerman clearly and admittedly pursued and engaged this kid. And the kid died. And the police say, "He pleads self-defense so there's nothing more we can do." Unbelievable. I do not think this will stand. It's too much. It's too blatantly illogical and wrong. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote: there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. | ||
| ||
