EPTTrayvon Martin 17yo Kid Shot to Death - Page 19
| 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. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
SwizzY
United States1549 Posts
In his position as "neighborhood watchman," if it states in a formally written contract or statement that the neighborhood and the local PD give him authority to investigate any and all disturbances or suspicious activity, I personally think Zimmerman is in the clear, even if the killing was unjustified. But the title "neighborhood watchman" and the fact that he had a gun on him with little to no official backing for either of those case facts bothers me the most and convinces me that this guy was just either plain trigger happy (frightened, excited, angry) or it was an accident. Did he profile the kid because he was black? Probably. But is it some deep-seated racist sentiment that each and every black person on my facebook page keeps rambling on about? I highly, HIGHLY doubt it. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:26 Anytus wrote: I totally agree that it seems like it SHOULD be illegal provided that that's the way things happened. Point to a specific law/statute though. I've been looking for over an hour and I haven't found one. Everything I have tried has had some caveat or exception that makes it not include this case. Based on what the stand your ground law says, the DA would have to prove that he committed a crime BEFORE he shot the kid. Otherwise the law says the shooting is justified because the DA can't prove that he wasn't acting in self-defense. And before he shot the kid I have hit a big nothin' on what law he broke. Wrong. He admitted to armed pursuit AND killing someone. He has to prove his life was in imminent danger and self defense was a last resort. Which it clearly wasn't from all the evidence given, including his admission of perusing the victim. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
The audio tapes have Zimmerman muttering under his breath "They always get away . . . fucking coons." The fact that he hasn't been arrested by now is yet another example of a double standard. If this was an adult black male shooting and killing a teenage white boy, you bet he'd be long gone behind bars by now. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote: if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:23 Jugan wrote: Then you probably should have thought about that before you KILLED someone. This case is a clear example of how they CAN'T be brought up on charges. WHERE IS THE TRIAL YOU SPEAK OF??? It seems like you don't understand the legal system much at all. The problem is that you can't make it clear to a point where people know what exactly is self-defense and what is murder. This is why people STAND TRIAL. Because if there is reasonable doubt, if the person felt their life was in imminent danger, then they would be found not guilty. If there is a reasonable doubt of whether or not that person committed murder or acted in self defense, then they are found INNOCENT. But under your legislation they're let go without due process. That is the standard you support when you don't force people to be held accountable in all circumstances of killing another person. The DA chose not to pursue this because they thought it was a waste of time, given the SYG law. I can't say I agree with that decision. Now the feds are taking a look, and he can be charged still. People stand trial because everyone deserves a defense, even if it is 100% clear you broke the law. I still maintain though that the law needs to be clear. If I feel like my life is in anger, I need to know whether or not I can shoot because choosing between maybe dieing and maybe going to jail for my life isn't much of a choice. The problem is that to me, in that particular situation there may not be any doubt that I was in danger and acted in self-defense. To a jury later though, it might be clear that I did not act in self-defense because they have a different perception or view than I do. This is why the law needs to be clear. Again, any time a person is killed it needs to be heavily investigated. It seems like the police did investigate here but decided charges wern't worth filing because they'd be dismissed. Again, I also agree that the law needs to be changed. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:32 Anytus wrote: The DA chose not to pursue this because they thought it was a waste of time, given the SYG law. I can't say I agree with that decision. Now the feds are taking a look, and he can be charged still. People stand trial because everyone deserves a defense, even if it is 100% clear you broke the law. I still maintain though that the law needs to be clear. If I feel like my life is in anger, I need to know whether or not I can shoot because choosing between maybe dieing and maybe going to jail for my life isn't much of a choice. The problem is that to me, in that particular situation there may not be any doubt that I was in danger and acted in self-defense. To a jury later though, it might be clear that I did not act in self-defense because they have a different perception or view than I do. This is why the law needs to be clear. Again, any time a person is killed it needs to be heavily investigated. It seems like the police did investigate here but decided charges wern't worth filing because they'd be dismissed. Again, I also agree that the law needs to be changed. That's clearly not what happened at all. Under the precedence the law sets, this is what occurred: "The police chief has said that, because Zimmerman has made a statement of self-defence, and there is no evidence to dispute that, he has not been arrested." You keep contradicting yourself in different posts. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
Wrong. He admitted to armed pursuit AND killing someone. He has to prove his life was in imminent danger and self defense was a last resort. Which it clearly wasn't from all the evidence given, including his admission of perusing the victim. That is not what Florida law says. It says that anyone who is attacked has the right to stand their ground, as long as they weren't doing anything illegal at the time. It doesn't say anything about pursuit or making a stupid decision or carrying a gun or anything, All you need is to be there lawfully (and again, I haven't found a law that he broke yet) and feel like your life is in danger. As far as the law is concerned, Zimmerman could have run headfirst into a gang war and mowed down everyone with a .45, as long as he didn't do anything illegal before he started shooting. I'm not saying it's right (it clearly isn't), but that's what the law says. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote: following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. And since when is it not at the very least Trespassing. Cops arrest people or give them tickets for much less, yet you think what he did is lawful LOL k. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:36 Jugan wrote: That's clearly not what happened at all. Under the precedence the law sets, this is what occurred: "The police chief has said that, because Zimmerman has made a statement of self-defence, and there is no evidence to dispute that, he has not been arrested." You keep contradicting yourself in different posts. Sorry if i misspoke, but what you quoted is exactly what I meant to say. Zimmerman says it was self defense. The DA/Police know they can't prove otherwise so they don't even bother charging him because they know it will get thrown out of court. He cans till be charged. EDIT: OH, i didn't mean that in this case it was clear that he broke that law. that's definitely not the case. it is far from clear if eh broke any laws at all. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:36 Anytus wrote: That is not what Florida law says. It says that anyone who is attacked has the right to stand their ground, as long as they weren't doing anything illegal at the time. It doesn't say anything about pursuit or making a stupid decision or carrying a gun or anything, All you need is to be there lawfully (and again, I haven't found a law that he broke yet) and feel like your life is in danger. As far as the law is concerned, Zimmerman could have run headfirst into a gang war and mowed down everyone with a .45, as long as he didn't do anything illegal before he started shooting. I'm not saying it's right (it clearly isn't), but that's what the law says. Can't wait to see him try to prove that he felt his life was in danger when he: 1. Chased after the "assailant" after being told not to 2. His assailant weighed 100 pounds less than him, and his weapon of choice was a bag of Skittles | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote: You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:38 Superiorwolf wrote: Can't wait to see him try to prove that he felt his life was in danger when he: 1. Chased after the "assailant" after being told not to 2. His assailant weighed 100 pounds less than him, and his weapon of choice was a bag of Skittles I agree its ridiculous, but punch someone enough times and they die. Zimmerman may have thought he had gun or a knife, not a bag of skittles. At the very least that is what he will CLAIM. The statute doesn't say his life actually has to be in danger, he only has to 'reasonably believe' that it is in danger. His being told not to chase him doesn't seem to factor into the law at all. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote: where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:38 Anytus wrote: Sorry if i misspoke, but what you quoted is exactly what I meant to say. Zimmerman says it was self defense. The DA/Police know they can't prove otherwise so they don't even bother charging him because they know it will get thrown out of court. He cans till be charged. EDIT: OH, i didn't mean that in this case it was clear that he broke that law. that's definitely not the case. it is far from clear if eh broke any laws at all. You clearly did not read any part of the discussion in this forum, including the several posts I made. Some brief facts for you. 1) He pursued an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 2) He shot and killed that unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 3) He claimed self defense. In the court of law he is now guilty (under his own admission and the evidence procured thus far) of: Murdering an unarmed minor. He must now reasonably PROVE or a reasonable person can CONCLUDE that he felt he was in a situation where his life was in imminent danger and that all other avenues of escape were closed off. But he probably won't because: 1) He admitted to pursuing an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 2) The victim's cries for help lasted and were recorded for well over a minute. 3) The victim was executed in short-range. Under your standard we getting what's happening now. Under my standard he gets put on a fair trial with the chance to prove or convince a reasonable person that his life was in immediate and imminent danger. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:41 Anytus wrote: I agree its ridiculous, but punch someone enough times and they die. Zimmerman may have thought he had gun or a knife, not a bag of skittles. At the very least that is what he will CLAIM. The statute doesn't say his life actually has to be in danger, he only has to 'reasonably believe' that it is in danger. His being told not to chase him doesn't seem to factor into the law at all. Ok, that could be a reasonable defense. Although I still think it isn't really that plausible, especially based on eyewitness accounts, he could make that claim. Regarding the chasing though, I think it does factor, here's a quote from someone who wrote the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida. "Former Sen. Durell Peaden (R-Ocala), one of the authors of the "Stand Your Ground" law, said that, based on his current understanding of the facts, Zimmerman should be prosecuted. The law does not say that a person has a right to confront another, he said. When Zimmerman ignored a police request to stay away, “The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”[48]" | ||
|
Zdrastochye
Ivory Coast6262 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:41 Anytus wrote: I agree its ridiculous, but punch someone enough times and they die. Zimmerman may have thought he had gun or a knife, not a bag of skittles. At the very least that is what he will CLAIM. The statute doesn't say his life actually has to be in danger, he only has to 'reasonably believe' that it is in danger. His being told not to chase him doesn't seem to factor into the law at all. You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Found this excerpt within a minute of Google searching. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote: Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... He did stalk, chase, and detain him but again it isn't clear that you can prove that he kidnapped or assaulted. You'd have to go a bit deeper than I have to figure out exactly what constitutes a threat of physical harm in Florida. Running after someone while holding a gun might qualify, I'm not sure. You might be able to get him on tresspassing but only if "and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass, commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance." So you'd have to show that either (1) he intended to commit a crime on the property or he actually did commit the crime on the property. Simply being on someone else's land isn't trespassing unless "notice against entering or remaining is given" or "the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person." | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:49 Anytus wrote: He did stalk, chase, and detain him but again it isn't clear that you can prove that he kidnapped or assaulted. You'd have to go a bit deeper than I have to figure out exactly what constitutes a threat of physical harm in Florida. Running after someone while holding a gun might qualify, I'm not sure. You actually can approve that he assaulted him. LOOK AT THE BULLET HOLE. oh and the fact that he admitted to it. I thought you said you were well versed in the law. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 22 2012 15:45 Zdrastochye wrote: Found this excerpt within a minute of Google searching. yeah, definitely. I'm not saying it was self-defense, just that it's complicated (as the link says). I am honestly not sure and I have only my direct reading of the Florida law to go on, not any already administered court decisions. | ||
| ||
