|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it?
From the OP, the relevant parts of the Self Defence law:
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself]
1) I'm not entirely sure what "great bodily harm" is legally and whether Zimmerman's injuries constituted great bodily harm.
2)Does Zimmerman following and confronting Trayvon constitute the provocation of force against him.
|
On March 29 2012 06:02 drop271 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? I both disagree with the law and the poster's summation of events. Zimmerman was not justified in using deadly force if he provoked the encounter (which the facts suggest he did). In terms of the law, personally I think its farcical. Why would you want a law that supports the escalation of events to deadly force because 'walking away and letting the police handle it' is not an expected action.
I agree with the principle people should be able to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary -- but if the by-product of this legislation gives average people the license to become ad-hoc police officers or vigilantes, than yiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Bear in mind I don't consider Zimmerman a vigilante, but the precedence this sets if his poor judgement goes unpunished disturbs me.
|
On March 29 2012 06:12 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? From the OP, the relevant parts of the Self Defence law: Show nested quote +A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself] 1) I'm not entirely sure what "great bodily harm" is legally and whether Zimmerman's injuries constituted great bodily harm. 2)Does Zimmerman following and confronting Trayvon constitute the provocation of force against him.
Anyone care to define provocation?
|
Questions to ponder regarding the validity of community watch and Z-man's initial behavior:
1) Does a homeowner have a right to stand on public property and observe any potential threats to his own property ?
2) Does a homeowner have a right to ask someone they consider suspicious what business they have in the area of the homeowner's property ?
3) Does a homeowner have a right to maintain vision of someone they consider suspicious while the homeowner is awaiting the arrival of police ?
4) Do multiple homeowners have a right to agree amongst themselves to look out in the above fashion, for each other's property ?
5) Do citizens, carrying a concealed carry permit, have a right to carry a firearm, in public areas, other than when prohibited by law, such as bars and government buildings ?
I believe the answer to each of the above questions is 'Yes', unequivocally.
As far as the 'profiling' aspect of this. I don't see the problem. If someone finds something suspicious, for whatever reason, they can call the police. I'm unaware of any law that one violates for reporting someone to the police based on their race, religion, dress, etc.
|
On March 29 2012 06:16 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:12 imallinson wrote:On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? From the OP, the relevant parts of the Self Defence law: A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself] 1) I'm not entirely sure what "great bodily harm" is legally and whether Zimmerman's injuries constituted great bodily harm. 2)Does Zimmerman following and confronting Trayvon constitute the provocation of force against him. Anyone care to define provocation?
I would certainly think that following a person while on the phone and then getting out and confronting that person could be provoking. How is Trayvon supposed to know what this guy is doing? Watch person, planning to rob him, something else? It needlessly put a person who was doing nothing on the defensive, without so much as raising a finger.
|
On March 29 2012 06:05 rhs408 wrote:
For people's FYI as I didn't see it mentioned in the OP, Zimmerman is on record as having called the Florida Police Department 46 times since 2001, most of which were him reporting suspicious behavior or persons in his neighborhood (source CNN). The guy is only 28 years old, which means that since he was 17 he has, well, been very suspicious/untrusting of people in general. This guy must seriously spend his free time near his home's front window so that he can always keep an eye out for anyone who he thinks doesn't belong. How many times have you called the police to report suspicious behavior? I'm now 32 years old and have called the police one time to report suspicious behavior, and that was when there was some retarded guy looking through my door window at 2am and wouldn't go away. What I'm getting at is that this guy (Zimmerman) was an accident waiting to happen. And sadly, this individual was legally armed with a gun. This guy should have never been allowed to carry a gun out in public. He's not a police officer in any sense of the word. I wouldn't charge him with murder, but there is no way in hell that he should not be charged with ANYTHING - it was extremely reckless and irresponsible on his part, and the result of it all was the death of a teenager. Treyvon's blood is on his hands, whether Treyvon beat his ass before he was shot or not. It's not self defense if you were the one who picked the fight.
Maybe he lives in a high crime area and you don't. I think most neighborhood watch people live in high crime areas, not cushy suburbs.
|
Provocation as used in the statute refers to an attack which would itself justify self-defense. So that means a physical attack. Just following and verbally confronting would not be provocation.
|
On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
I think there are two different issues here that some posters are having trouble separating.
1. Why did Zimmerman consider Martin suspicious? We don't know. Many people speculate it was racial profiling, and that may well be true, but racial profiling by itself is not a crime. You may argue that Zimmerman was morally unjustified in calling the police and following Martin, but those actions are certainly not criminal. Racial profiling is a societal problem; we are talking about an individual action here.
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. It is irrelevant whether Zimmerman "started it" or whether you disagree with the legislation; this is what the law says.
Considering that Zimmerman's suspicion lead to the shooting, I think we should be careful not to examine these issues you've raised in separate vacuums.
The law is challenged by many as vague and open to abuse. This incident highlights it. The law is subject to change, so people's disagreement with the legislation is anything but irrelevant.
|
I tried to read everything on this, but I have yet to find if EMS was called to the scene had any interaction with Zimmerman. This would seem to be the case where they would be especially careful to note zimmermans condition and any treatment given.
|
On March 29 2012 06:12 imallinson wrote:
1) I'm not entirely sure what "great bodily harm" is legally and whether Zimmerman's injuries constituted great bodily harm.
It's not the injuries per se, although I would consider them evidence of Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Knowing what I know about how often cops are shot with their own weapons, the possibility / likelihood of Trayvon getting Zimmerman's gun is the relevant threat of great bodily harm to Zimmerman. From Zimmerman's account, he was not only getting beat up, but quite easily could have been rendered unconscious at any moment. He simply could not prevent Trayvon from getting his weapon. Therefore, even though Zimmerman is the reason the gun was there, I can see his 'self-defense' argument. It's the same with any law enforcement. You attack someone with a gun, even if you are unarmed, you 'could' get their weapon and use it against them. One cannot ignore that fact if giving this scenario an honest, objective review.
|
On March 29 2012 06:25 Renent wrote:
I tried to read everything on this, but I have yet to find if EMS was called to the scene had any interaction with Zimmerman. This would seem to be the case where they would be especially careful to note zimmermans condition and any treatment given.
I'm not sure where I read it, but Zimmerman was treated at the scene. He went to the hospital the next day.
edit: Actually, I think it was the police report.
|
On March 29 2012 06:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
I think there are two different issues here that some posters are having trouble separating.
1. Why did Zimmerman consider Martin suspicious? We don't know. Many people speculate it was racial profiling, and that may well be true, but racial profiling by itself is not a crime. You may argue that Zimmerman was morally unjustified in calling the police and following Martin, but those actions are certainly not criminal. Racial profiling is a societal problem; we are talking about an individual action here.
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. It is irrelevant whether Zimmerman "started it" or whether you disagree with the legislation; this is what the law says. Considering that Zimmerman's suspicion lead to the shooting, I think we should be careful not to examine these issues you've raised in separate vacuums. The law is challenged by many as vague and open to abuse. This incident highlights it. The law is subject to change, so people's disagreement with the legislation is anything but irrelevant.
More damning to his stand your ground/self defense claim is that if you are calling the cops on someone for being suspicious, you are presuming they are in the act of or about to be in the act of a crime. It is then probably safe to assume that he might be armed. Furthermore, if you see him 'reaching into his waistband' (as he stated at least once on the 911 call) it really hammers home the fact that the kid might be armed.
Why are you engaging a person who you called the cops on for being suspicious, and that person has his hand in his waistband and then his pocket??
|
On March 29 2012 06:25 scaban84 wrote:
Maybe he lives in a high crime area and you don't. I think most neighborhood watch people live in high crime areas, not cushy suburbs.
Not exactly a reply to this post, but...
I know I've seen some street signs in certain neighborhoods that say "Community Watch Area" or something to that effect. I'm wondering if anyone has seen if there was such a sign in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and if so, does it have any relevance ? I could see the existence of a sign helping Zimmerman, in that, those who enter the neighborhood would be notified up front of the possibility of encountering such a watchman.
|
Once again, the "stand your ground" rule is legally irrelevant to this case. Self-defense is relevant.
Here is an exhaustive examination of the laws regarding self-defense in Florida, from a lawyer's blog:
Florida's Self-defense Laws
|
On March 29 2012 06:33 Hawk wrote:
More damning to his stand your ground/self defense claim is that if you are calling the cops on someone for being suspicious, you are presuming they are in the act of or about to be in the act of a crime. It is then probably safe to assume that he might be armed. Furthermore, if you see him 'reaching into his waistband' (as he stated at least once on the 911 call) it really hammers home the fact that the kid might be armed.
Why are you engaging a person who you called the cops on for being suspicious, and that person has his hand in his waistband and then his pocket??
Because Zimmerman was trying to protect his community ? He was trying to discern whether Trayvon was up to something illegal, thus asking him what he was doing. Following him is nothing more than observing and providing updated information to the police for when they get there. To ignore Trayvon, while obviously the safest for him personally, would leave Trayvon free to victimize others.
|
On March 29 2012 06:33 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:25 plogamer wrote:On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
I think there are two different issues here that some posters are having trouble separating.
1. Why did Zimmerman consider Martin suspicious? We don't know. Many people speculate it was racial profiling, and that may well be true, but racial profiling by itself is not a crime. You may argue that Zimmerman was morally unjustified in calling the police and following Martin, but those actions are certainly not criminal. Racial profiling is a societal problem; we are talking about an individual action here.
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. It is irrelevant whether Zimmerman "started it" or whether you disagree with the legislation; this is what the law says. Considering that Zimmerman's suspicion lead to the shooting, I think we should be careful not to examine these issues you've raised in separate vacuums. The law is challenged by many as vague and open to abuse. This incident highlights it. The law is subject to change, so people's disagreement with the legislation is anything but irrelevant. More damning to his stand your ground/self defense claim is that if you are calling the cops on someone for being suspicious, you are presuming they are in the act of or about to be in the act of a crime. It is then probably safe to assume that he might be armed. Furthermore, if you see him 'reaching into his waistband' (as he stated at least once on the 911 call) it really hammers home the fact that the kid might be armed. Why are you engaging a person who you called the cops on for being suspicious, and that person has his hand in his waistband and then his pocket??
I agree Hawk. Even if the guy had the best of intentions, he put himself in the situation and provoked the harm that may or may not have come his way. Therefore, he forfeited the right to self-defense because he himself initiated the contact. What would you do if someone was following you? You might attack, you might run, point is you never know. And Zimmerman should not have confronted the individual he believed to be dangerous. He acted in this situation as both a vigilante and an aggressor, and should be punished as such I believe.
|
On March 29 2012 06:16 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:12 imallinson wrote:On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote:
2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? From the OP, the relevant parts of the Self Defence law: A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself] 1) I'm not entirely sure what "great bodily harm" is legally and whether Zimmerman's injuries constituted great bodily harm. 2)Does Zimmerman following and confronting Trayvon constitute the provocation of force against him. Anyone care to define provocation?
here is the pertinent statute (i think), which is less than helpful. most likely the jury just decides whether the person is the initial aggressor (i.e., provoked force against himself).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
|
Has anyone else noticed what a farce the mainstream media is making this?
They use a five-year old photo of Zimmerman in an attempt to show him in a negative light. The photo they use is an old mugshot from an arrest (he wasn't convicted on btw). In that one, I agree, Zimmerman doesn't appear to be an upstanding citizen. BUT, in more recent photos (and ones where he hasn't been through the hell that is police booking), he looks like your average, decent citizen, not some crazy racist: Zimmerman Photo
They pull the same kind of crap with Trayvon's photos. The pic they use is years old. More recent photos of Trayvon show that he was not some helpless youngster. Remember, he was 17 when he was shot.
What I'm getting at, is that the media is not where this case should be settled. They explode, and turn local cases into such crazy circuses, we may never know the truth.
Instead of making it a national issue, how about we just let the courts handle it? Juries and judges are far more reasonable, and less prone to letting emotions control them than Al Sharpton or Spike Lee.
At any rate, whether Zimmerman is innocent or not, his life is effectively ruined. Everyone will remember the uproar about the case, but no one will remember in the end what the real result was. They'll automatically assume he was guilty. This will make it impossible for Zimmerman to do pretty much anything with his life.
Remember, Zimmerman may be innocent. We simply do not know; and we shouldn't let the media burn him at the stake until a court of law proves him guilty.
|
Kaitlin, two points. First of all, he called the police and they were on their way. That certainly seems like fulfilling his responsibility to his neighborhood watch duties. We know for a fact that Trayvon did not pull Zimmerman out of the car to beat him up, so at the very least Zimmerman left the car to initially pursue him.
Secondly, "In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."
The article has more on appropriate neighborhood watch behavior.
http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php
|
On March 29 2012 06:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:33 Hawk wrote:
More damning to his stand your ground/self defense claim is that if you are calling the cops on someone for being suspicious, you are presuming they are in the act of or about to be in the act of a crime. It is then probably safe to assume that he might be armed. Furthermore, if you see him 'reaching into his waistband' (as he stated at least once on the 911 call) it really hammers home the fact that the kid might be armed.
Why are you engaging a person who you called the cops on for being suspicious, and that person has his hand in his waistband and then his pocket?? Because Zimmerman was trying to protect his community ? He was trying to discern whether Trayvon was up to something illegal, thus asking him what he was doing. Following him is nothing more than observing and providing updated information to the police for when they get there. To ignore Trayvon, while obviously the safest for him personally, would leave Trayvon free to victimize others.
Why take things to such extremes? Zimmerman did his part by informing the police, he did not ignore Trayvon. This post is dubious at best :S
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
