|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated.
but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing
|
On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true.
Assuming what you say is accurate, if anything, Martin was defending himself against an aggressor. I hope this guy goes to jail for what he did, it's not right.
|
On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:
Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously.
It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen.
Yeah, no one said the police didn't investigate, just that they didn't charge him cuz they didn't think it would stick. Presumably they had to investigate enough to realize that there was no evidence. Now the feds are involved so I'm sure they're investigating.
|
On March 22 2012 16:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So in these ass-backwards 16 states with this "Stand Yer Ground, 'Merica Fuck Yeah", it's straight up legal to murder somebody as long as no one was there to witness it, and as long as you say "yo dawg, self defense"
Scary, isn't it? Like I said before, I'm in favor of what these laws are trying to do but they need to be worded very carefully. Also, it isn't the same in all 16 states. The law in some states is more clear or restricts the right to stand your ground to you home, vehicle, and business only. ie not the middle of a dark street.
Texas (surprisingly) has a MUCH more detailed statute that seems like it would not allow this person to get off.
|
|
|
On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing
and that is based on?
|
On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up.
Now your talking shit. We can say for certain that it was Zimmeran who pursued Tray. You obviously don't know the law because you think you can follow people wherever you please. IF Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked you know whose fault that is? Its Zimmermans.
Zimmerman actively put himself in danger and then decided he had to kill someone to get out of it. Cops get paid to do what he did, not only are they paid to do it. They are the only people paid to do it and they do it in uniform with clearly identified vehicles with large flashing lights, and strict protocols for detaining people. Whether or not thats self defense is irrelevent. He was trespassing, and he was menacing, then he commited murder (maybe in self defense, but even then he used excesive force (which is another crime), and self defense gets thrown out the window as soon as you commit a crime). You do not have the right to follow people around, how ever you like, I really hope you understand that.
Tray may have acted out of line, and the same goes for Zimmerman. The FACT is that Zimmerman decided it was his job to be the police and aphrehend this guy. He doesn't have that right. And you are batshit insane if you think he has that right.
If you want to say I'm making something up, fucking say what it is. I'm allowed to have my own fucking opinion about what happened (I'm assuming its about the actual event and not about FL Laws). And regardless of what I think happened, he broke more than one law before Tray was dead, whether he will be convicted of any of them is up to a court, on which my OPINION means nothing. Feel free to be mad at me for having an opinion though.
I will post until I'm blue in the fingers about this, as long as you don't understand that the United States is not so "Free" that you can follow people around however you please. IF you do, they can take you to court, and it will stop, or you will go to jail. Thats called a crime, and that is a fact. He had no right to confront Tray, and its my opinion, that he probably did so aggressively, its also my opinion that Tray was probably going to react negatively to being confronted, regardless of how (I doubt that Zimmerman waved him over to shake his hand and talk about the weather).
I'm sorry this thread isn't 3 posts of 3 setences that contain "the facts" according to dAPhREAK. Sorry your utopia doesn't exist. If you don't like something you don't have to read it. And you don't have to comment on it either, just like the 3-4 posts I have written on this topic that I deleted before finishing.
|
On March 22 2012 16:38 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So in these ass-backwards 16 states with this "Stand Yer Ground, 'Merica Fuck Yeah", it's straight up legal to murder somebody as long as no one was there to witness it, and as long as you say "yo dawg, self defense" Scary, isn't it? Like I said before, I'm in favor of what these laws are trying to do but they need to be worded very carefully. Also, it isn't the same in all 16 states. The law in some states is more clear or restricts the right to stand your ground to you home, vehicle, and business only. ie not the middle of a dark street.
Yeah I just think there's definitely a problem - whether in the wording or the law itself - when a place has to officially inform tourists that they must calmly comply and "raise hands freely" in any confrontation so as to completely avoid giving anyone an excuse to murder, legally. Seems all shitty to me.
|
On March 22 2012 16:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing and that is based on?
news. journalists. reporting. etc. the usual. nothing special/magical
|
Note also though that the same person is seeking to change the law. he didn't intend for it to cover this situation, but based on the way the law is written, it might.
|
On March 22 2012 16:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing and that is based on?
Agreed, based on what?
Knew about this the day it happened and the news has barely covered it. Surprised it took TL this long to get a thread on it.
|
On March 22 2012 16:48 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing and that is based on? Agreed, based on what?
o idk.. maybe this:
"On Monday, following a national outcry over the case, the US justice department announced that it would investigate the case, along with the FBI."
it's in the OP..heh
|
On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true.
Here is an interesting thought experiment to think about regarding the law. One of two things happened:
(1) Zimmerman initiated the fight and shot Martin. Uncontroversial murder
(2) or Martin initiated the fight so Zimmerman can claim self defense. But according to the "stand your ground" law Martin is legally entitled to try to kill Zimmerman since Zimmerman following him is clearly a perceived threat to his life. So If Martin had killed Zimmerman then he could uncontroversially claim self defense. And here Zimmerman has killed Martin and is claiming self defense. The IRONY is that Martin can legally initiate the fight in self defense and get killed by Zimmerman and then Zimmerman can claim self defense. So the IRONY is that no matter who kills who the other can claim self defense. Of course this is based on the assumption that you believe Zimmerman can claim bullshit self defense.
|
On March 22 2012 16:47 Anytus wrote:Note also though that the same person is seeking to change the law. he didn't intend for it to cover this situation, but based on the way the law is written, it might.
But you need to note that when you read laws, you need to read the context in which it was written, you don't just look at it word for word and interpret it in a manner that it was not meant to be interpreted.
|
On March 22 2012 16:46 Wrongspeedy wrote:
Now your talking shit. We can say for certain that it was Zimmeran who pursued Tray. You obviously don't know the law because you think you can follow people wherever you please. IF Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked you know whose fault that is? Its Zimmermans.
Zimmerman actively put himself in danger and then decided he had to kill someone to get out of it. Cops get paid to do what he did, not only are they paid to do it. They are the only people paid to do it and they do it in uniform with clearly identified vehicles with large flashing lights, and strict protocols for detaining people. Whether or not thats self defense is irrelevent. He was trespassing, and he was menacing, then he commited murder (maybe in self defense, but even then he used excesive force (which is another crime), and self defense gets thrown out the window as soon as you commit a crime). You do not have the right to follow people around, how ever you like, I really hope you understand that.
Can you link (again perhaps) to the statute you are going off of? I looked for 'menacing' in the Florida law but can't find it. again, for the trespassing, you'd have to show that he either did or intended to commit a crime on the other person's property. Simply being there is not enough (unless he was told by a sign or the owner to get off the property). The Florida stand your ground law doesn't say anything about excessive force, provided he actually believed his life to be in danger.
|
He's a legislator, not a legal expert. What he says has little bearing on whether or not it is applicable so we shouldn't stop discussing it just because he gave his opinion.
|
Authorities are going to have a hard time convicting this guy even if they wanted to. There's only 1 witness left alive who saw what actually happened and he's claiming self defence.
The 911 call and the other witness statement are circumstantial at best and wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.
From what I can see here, this looks like a tough sell to prove murder.
|
On March 22 2012 16:46 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Now your talking shit. We can say for certain that it was Zimmeran who pursued Tray. You obviously don't know the law because you think you can follow people wherever you please. IF Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked you know whose fault that is? Its Zimmermans. Zimmerman actively put himself in danger and then decided he had to kill someone to get out of it. Cops get paid to do what he did, not only are they paid to do it. They are the only people paid to do it and they do it in uniform with clearly identified vehicles with large flashing lights, and strict protocols for detaining people. Whether or not thats self defense is irrelevent. He was trespassing, and he was menacing, then he commited murder (maybe in self defense, but even then he used excesive force (which is another crime), and self defense gets thrown out the window as soon as you commit a crime). You do not have the right to follow people around, how ever you like, I really hope you understand that. Tray may have acted out of line, and the same goes for Zimmerman. The FACT is that Zimmerman decided it was his job to be the police and aphrehend this guy. He doesn't have that right. And you are batshit insane if you think he has that right. If you want to say I'm making something up, fucking say what it is. I'm allowed to have my own fucking opinion about what happened (I'm assuming its about the actual event and not about FL Laws). And regardless of what I think happened, he broke more than one law before Tray was dead, whether he will be convicted of any of them is up to a court, on which my OPINION means nothing. Feel free to be mad at me for having an opinion though. I will post until I'm blue in the fingers about this, as long as you don't understand that the United States is not so "Free" that you can follow people around however you please. IF you do, they can take you to court, and it will stop, or you will go to jail. Thats called a crime, and that is a fact. He had no right to confront Tray, and its my opinion, that he probably did so aggressively, its also my opinion that Tray was probably going to react negatively to being confronted, regardless of how (I doubt that Zimmerman waved him over to shake his hand and talk about the weather). I'm sorry this thread isn't 3 posts of 3 setences that contain "the facts" according to dAPhREAK. Sorry your utopia doesn't exist. If you don't like something you don't have to read it. And you don't have to comment on it either, just like the 3-4 posts I have written on this topic that I deleted before finishing.
verbal diarrhea and a desire to make shit up is not a good combination.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 22 2012 16:55 lisward wrote:
But you need to note that when you read laws, you need to read the context in which it was written, you don't just look at it word for word and interpret it in a manner that it was not meant to be interpreted.
heh, I think that that depends on which appellate judge you ask! You're right though. Your interpretation can't go outside of the letter of the law tho, it has to be consistent with what is written. On my reading, saying he committed murder (if it was the minor who first initiated the physical altercation, which of course is what Zimmerman will claim) is inconsistent what what the law says.
|
On March 22 2012 16:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. 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.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing and that is based on? news. journalists. reporting. etc. the usual. nothing special/magical
can you show me something that says they didnt investigate it? because when you find a body on the ground. you dont just walk away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
