|
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 16:58 RowdierBob wrote:
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.
I mean. 250 lbs. 9mm weapon -- that's the vigilante sicko. 140 lbs, can of soda, bag of candy -- that's the victim. That's also going to be tough to sweep under the rug while he is describing the acts of self defense to the court and why murder was the only possible choice
|
On March 22 2012 16:53 ccherng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote: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.
no, someone "pursuing" you is not a reasonable threat to your life and justification to kill them. The case isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. It has to do with culpability and how much Zimmerman's actions/negligence led to Trayvon's death. There should definitely be a trial, but it's not as simple as 1 dead body + 1 guy with gun = 1 murder
|
On March 22 2012 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:47 FallDownMarigold wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
why? im not talking about a police investigation, im talking about a justice department/FBI investigation. what are you getting at? no beating around the bush pls
|
On March 22 2012 16:55 BlackJack wrote: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.
You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for.
|
Poor kid, thats really fucked up. Zimmerman sounds really calm and collected on the phone in all honesty he just sounds like some concerned neighbour, but i mean the kid was significantly smaller than him i cant believe it was a self defence. He clearly just panicked or something idiotic and pulled out his gun.
-->reasons why guns should not be available to the mass population (its full of idiots)
|
On March 22 2012 17:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I mean. 250 lbs. 9mm weapon -- that's the vigilante sicko. 140 lbs, can of soda, bag of candy -- that's the victim. That's also going to be tough to sweep under the rug while he is describing the acts of self defense to the court and why murder was the only possible choice
Honestly though, a judge might not let it get that far. The lack of evidence coupled with the broad law might mean that the judge will throw it out before it gets to a jury. The DA can appeal it then but still.
|
On March 22 2012 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:47 FallDownMarigold wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It is implied that the man was not investigated in the OP, they just took him in for his statement and let him go.
|
On March 22 2012 17:03 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I mean. 250 lbs. 9mm weapon -- that's the vigilante sicko. 140 lbs, can of soda, bag of candy -- that's the victim. That's also going to be tough to sweep under the rug while he is describing the acts of self defense to the court and why murder was the only possible choice Honestly though, a judge might not let it get that far. The lack of evidence coupled with the broad law might mean that the judge will throw it out before it gets to a jury. The DA can appeal it then but still.
Well I guess the guy should watch his back for the rest of his life. If I was closely related to that kid, I'd feel like the system really let one get away... Not implying anything.
|
On March 22 2012 16:55 lisward wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not much practical experience with the law, I gather ...
|
On March 22 2012 17:02 lisward wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for.
His opinion is valid, but it isn't the only one that matters. You can't pass a law that is broad and then say "but it only applies to X or Y." That will get declared unconstitutional REAL fast. You have to be careful with your laws so that your intent matches your words. You get some wiggle room, but not an unlimited amount. A judge may disagree but not counting this case seems a little outside the wiggle room to me.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing
The laws wording veries from state to state. It includes stalking, things that may not be considered illegal in other circumstances. And while someone chasing you might not be a "death" threat. Its clearly a threat of physical harm.
"It is distinct from other similar weapons-related crimes of violence such as "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon" in that the charge of menacing requires neither an actual deadly weapon be displayed (any object wielded threateningly can be used to menace in many states), nor any actual physical contact. The display also need not be accompanied by a verbal threat; if the display of the weapon would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm from the perpetrator, the threat is considered to be implicit."
|
On March 22 2012 17:02 lisward wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:55 BlackJack wrote: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. You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for.
Lol? What does that even mean? Of course his opinion is perfectly "valid." Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid. That doesn't change the fact that he is a legislator and not a legal expert and what he says has little bearing on whether or not this law is applicable.
|
On March 22 2012 17:03 Leto II wrote:
he just sounds like some concerned neighbour
Concerned neighbor....Or, overly paranoid, frustrated with recent robberies, and slightly racist against young black dudes?
I mean, did you read the transcript? Unless they are literally misquoting him, then he is a racist, plain and simple. That has to add something here... Does no one else read the transcript and see how racist that is?
"He's a black male... These assholes, they always get away."
They? Really?
|
On March 22 2012 17:05 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:55 lisward wrote: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. Not much practical experience with the law, I gather ...
As a matter of fact I do have experience in law, I did study law.
|
On March 22 2012 17:07 Wrongspeedy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing The laws wording veries from state to state. It includes stalking, things that may not be considered illegal in other circumstances. And while someone chasing you might not be a "death" threat. Its clearly a threat of physical harm. "It is distinct from other similar weapons-related crimes of violence such as "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon" in that the charge of menacing requires neither an actual deadly weapon be displayed (any object wielded threateningly can be used to menace in many states), nor any actual physical contact. The display also need not be accompanied by a verbal threat; if the display of the weapon would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm from the perpetrator, the threat is considered to be implicit."
Gotcha, I managed to find the wiki article, but I haven't found anything specific in Florida's actual Penal Code. Ideas on where it might be?
|
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.
-Martin's father didn't say that. If you listen closely you can clearly distinguish the screams as coming from a black male.
-Martin's girlfriend believes from her phonecall with him that he was pushed by Zimmerman after Martin asked why he was following him and Zimmerman asked him why he was there.
-Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend while Zimmerman was stalking him. What kind of suspicious activity takes place with the perp chatting on the phone? (Chatting the key word)
|
this is pretty crazy, how on earth can you pursue someone after police asked you not to and still claim self defense? Looks like the relevant law can be broadly interpreted. I'm just glad I'm not a black man (living in the states)
|
On March 22 2012 17:10 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:07 Wrongspeedy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing The laws wording veries from state to state. It includes stalking, things that may not be considered illegal in other circumstances. And while someone chasing you might not be a "death" threat. Its clearly a threat of physical harm. "It is distinct from other similar weapons-related crimes of violence such as "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon" in that the charge of menacing requires neither an actual deadly weapon be displayed (any object wielded threateningly can be used to menace in many states), nor any actual physical contact. The display also need not be accompanied by a verbal threat; if the display of the weapon would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm from the perpetrator, the threat is considered to be implicit." Gotcha, I managed to find the wiki article, but I haven't found anything specific in Florida's actual Penal Code. Ideas on where it might be?
Probably your best bet would be to get in touch with a Florida court. Google would be a good starting place to find the contact info. GL!
|
On March 22 2012 17:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:02 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 16:55 BlackJack wrote: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. You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for. Lol? What does that even mean? Of course his opinion is perfectly "valid." Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid. That doesn't change the fact that he is a legislator and not a legal expert and what he says has little bearing on whether or not this law is applicable.
It is because of that fact that he passed the law that he knows exactly when and whether the law is applicable. In this case where people are unsure whether it is applicable or not, you look at the Legislative Intent. That is where his word as a legislator has bearing on whether his law is applicable.
|
On March 22 2012 17:10 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:07 Wrongspeedy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing The laws wording veries from state to state. It includes stalking, things that may not be considered illegal in other circumstances. And while someone chasing you might not be a "death" threat. Its clearly a threat of physical harm. "It is distinct from other similar weapons-related crimes of violence such as "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon" in that the charge of menacing requires neither an actual deadly weapon be displayed (any object wielded threateningly can be used to menace in many states), nor any actual physical contact. The display also need not be accompanied by a verbal threat; if the display of the weapon would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm from the perpetrator, the threat is considered to be implicit." Gotcha, I managed to find the wiki article, but I haven't found anything specific in Florida's actual Penal Code. Ideas on where it might be?
Sadly no. But the first thing I see on google when I look it up is my own states menacing laws, so maybe if someone from FL googles it LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
