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.
It is not about what his goal was, it is what he did: engaging someone who he thougth had commited or was about to commit a crime, and may have a weapon, judging by his 'hand in the waistband' comment. That is provoking, which it very specifically says is a no-no in the op's posting of the law
I don't believe following and talking to a person can be construed as "provoking" in a legal sense. Perhaps if he had put his hands on Trayvon, or if he had walked up and pulled the gun out and started waving it around, but just following and engaging is not a legal provocation, I am almost positive.
In my opinion, with the evidence given and the likelihood of new evidence (low), we will never know exactly what happened, and therefore can't convict, or even charge, Zimmerman of murder, or manslaughter. We have a corpse and a guy claiming self-defense and not much else, and without more I don't know what can be done about it. We shouldn't just arrest the guy and charge him unless something new comes to light, like a new eye-witness or perhaps a clear lie by Zimmerman.
Also, on a side note, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the "Stand your ground" laws. I do not believe that they have any legal pertinence here, as this was not a case of Treyvon breaking into a home, or threatening Zimmerman, or anything that "Stand your ground" laws pertain to. It seems more like a question of self-defense statutes, and even more than that, a lack of proper information.
On March 29 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote: 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.
They used that mugshot picture of Zimmerman because it was the only one they had, so you can't claim they were biased in choosing it. The one you linked didn't surface until weeks after this whole thing started when it was leaked by a former employer.
On March 29 2012 06:58 alQahira wrote: Millitron, the problem was the courts did not handle this case appropriately initially. The only way this case got reopened was because of the family's protests and appeals that went outside of the criminal justice system, because the system did a cursory investigation, saw that a black man was involved in an altercation with a white man, and moved on.
You are just propogating the racial narrative. Zimmerman isn't white, he's hispanic. And he has a strong case, backed up by the police reports, that it was indeed self defense.
It is sad how many people have no respect for the "freedom of speech" in this thread. No police officer (and certainly not a dispatcher) can force you to not confront someone on public land. Completely baffles me how people today don’t understand this extremely basic and fundamental right we have in the US.
Secondly, something no one seems to bring up. What does it say about the parents when they let their son spend his suspension from school at his girlfriend’s house... horrible parents. No excuses. Get caught selling drugs, go have sex with your girlfriend.
My understanding of the issue here is the following:
one can only claim self-defense if the confrontation is initiated by the other party. That is, if someone tries to rob me with a gun, I am allowed to fight back because the robber initiated the confrontation. On the other hand, if I am the robber who tries to rob a guy, and that guy fights back, then I killed him, it's NOT self-defense because I initiated the confrontation.
In this case, I think it is without a doubt that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. But I am not sure if he is doing it out of his duty as a volunteer neighbourhood watch... I am not sure if this position offers him any protection, or duty, to confront him.
I don't believe following and talking to a person can be construed as "provoking" in a legal sense. Perhaps if he had put his hands on Trayvon, or if he had walked up and pulled the gun out and started waving it around, but just following and engaging is not a legal provocation, I am almost positive.
Perhaps not in the legal sense. But context is pretty important. You have a lone teen being approached by an adult for no readily apparent reason. Nevermind the height, there's a sort of psychology of it and were I a teen, red flags would be going up if this isn't a neighbourly greeting thing. There's an element of threat just psychologically with a male adult- alpha male if you will. And it's especially a threat as he doesn't have uniform which would allow the teen to account for the adult's behaviour. And who knows what happened, but if he pushed the teen into fright or flight then that could easily account for Zimmerman getting 'attacked' first.
The other thing you get with certain people in security is wannabe cops which end up being way to aggressive. Or as one of our security guards called 'trying to be robocop.' Basically, going way beyond their training and placing themselves in stupid situations. The fact that the guy was told not to pursue and he continued to do so really gives me the wannabe cop vibe.
On March 29 2012 08:20 Sufficiency wrote: My understanding of the issue here is the following:
one can only claim self-defense if the confrontation is initiated by the other party. That is, if someone tries to rob me with a gun, I am allowed to fight back because the robber initiated the confrontation. On the other hand, if I am the robber who tries to rob a guy, and that guy fights back, then I killed him, it's NOT self-defense because I initiated the confrontation.
In this case, I think it is without a doubt that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. But I am not sure if he is doing it out of his duty as a volunteer neighbourhood watch... I am not sure if this position offers him any protection, or duty, to confront him.
It's not about duty or protection, its about how he went about it. If it was simply confronting him verbally, asking where he was going or from or something like that, then it is completely within his rights, just as it is within mine to ask you where you're going at any point if I see you on the street.
You of course do not have to answer, nor do you have to even acknowledge my existence.
Zimmerman's lawyer has stated that they do not intend to base their defense on stand your ground law. According to him, Zimmerman is completely covered by regular self defense.
The hand wringing over stand your ground laws seems to be as pointless as the rest of the media hoopla.
Lawyer: Family of Trayvon Martin to pursue civil case
Meanwhile, a lawyer for the man at the center of the death investigation said Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't apply to the shooting that killed the teen.
"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"
On March 29 2012 08:20 Sufficiency wrote: My understanding of the issue here is the following:
one can only claim self-defense if the confrontation is initiated by the other party. That is, if someone tries to rob me with a gun, I am allowed to fight back because the robber initiated the confrontation. On the other hand, if I am the robber who tries to rob a guy, and that guy fights back, then I killed him, it's NOT self-defense because I initiated the confrontation.
In this case, I think it is without a doubt that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. But I am not sure if he is doing it out of his duty as a volunteer neighbourhood watch... I am not sure if this position offers him any protection, or duty, to confront him.
"Confrontation" in this case isn't at the level of attempted robbery. It's more like asking "Who are you and why are you here?"
On March 29 2012 06:58 alQahira wrote: Millitron, the problem was the courts did not handle this case appropriately initially. The only way this case got reopened was because of the family's protests and appeals that went outside of the criminal justice system, because the system did a cursory investigation, saw that a black man was involved in an altercation with a white man, and moved on.
You are just propogating the racial narrative. Zimmerman isn't white, he's hispanic. And he has a strong case, backed up by the police reports, that it was indeed self defense.
This racial narrative might be the worst part of the whole situation. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, and others pull the racism card every chance they get. Absolutely every little issue is about racism to them, and because they are constantly accusing people of racism, I can't take them seriously.
I accept that there are people motivated to do terrible things because of race, but whenever anything bad at all happens to a black person, Al Sharpton and co. immediately call it racism.
They cry wolf so much, that they've lost all credibility to me, which is sad, because one of these days they're going to accuse someone of racism and be right, and I won't pay the least bit of attention.
news stations such as faux news and your general unconvinced civilian for some reason love to point "HEY LOOK HE DID THIS IN THE PAST, HE USED DRUGS! SO HE WAS A BAD PERSON!" but they don't actually understand the entire point of this fucking shooting, is that at the time of the shooting he was actually doing nothing wrong. what type of country do we really live in that killing someone who was unarmed and minding their own business justified if they smoke weed, has sucker punched someone before, was suspended from school? does this somehow justify the killing of him? obviously not and i don't want to live in a country that thinks it does (or its civilians that think it does).
On March 29 2012 08:33 Silidons wrote: news stations such as faux news and your general unconvinced civilian for some reason love to point "HEY LOOK HE DID THIS IN THE PAST, HE USED DRUGS! SO HE WAS A BAD PERSON!" but they don't actually understand the entire point of this fucking shooting, is that at the time of the shooting he was actually doing nothing wrong. what type of country do we really live in that killing someone who was unarmed and minding their own business justified if they smoke weed, has sucker punched someone before, was suspended from school? does this somehow justify the killing of him? obviously not and i don't want to live in a country that thinks it does (or its civilians that think it does).
Assaulting someone from behind and then banging their head into concrete and punching them in the face over and over is "doing nothing wrong" according to you?
At least that is what Zimmerman alleges. Since we don't know what the truth is, I don't see a problem with including character evidence in the discussion.
On March 29 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote: same situation, but the other guy gets up, smashes a bottle on the bar and starts towards me with the broken bottle in his hand. i back up and say "fuck, im sorry dude" and try to run away. he still comes at me with the bottle. then i kill him. this is an arguable self defense.
Well, I know what I'm doing tonight!
But seriously, it sounds like self-defense is largely defined by who escalates the conflict, versus who initiates it. Correct?
I don't understand why everyone keeps referring to Martin as a "boy" or "kid." Yes he was 17, but its not uncommon for 17 year old people to be tried as adults in the courts. Martin had demonstrated behavior that shows he was not just another innocent kid. The line between child and adult is not always as black and white as an arbitrary number.
I had the misfortune of needing a job bad enough that I had to take one working at a juvenile prison for almost a year. My particular placement put me in a cell block with 19 young men ages 17-19. The 17 year olds were worse than the 18 and 19 year olds in terms of violence because they believed the fact that they were still 17 made them immune from being sent up to the State Penitentiary with the big boys.
I'm 6' 250 lbs and served 6 years in the military and at least once a week was involved in some form of physical conflict with the prisoners there. It was either trying to break up a fight between the inmates, stopping someone from throwing furniture into the walls, being assaulted personally, or helping another guard who was being assaulted. Three of my ribs were broken during that time, and I had to get 7 stitches to sew up a cut after a 17 year old "kid" took a swing at me.
For anyone thinking that a 17 year old kid isn't capable of putting a full grown man in a position where he feels his life is threatened, go spend a year working at a juvenile detention center with 17 year old "kids" and then tell us how you feel about it.
I for one believe that Zimmerman could have avoided this entire situation by simply following the advice of the 911 operator and not followed Martin at all. Hindsight is 20/20 though. I have a wife and a daughter, and if I saw an unfamiliar suspicious person walking around in my neighborhood I can promise you that I would approach him and introduce myself in an effort to find out who they were and why they were there, especially if there had been a string of robberies in recent months.
Given all the new evidence, witness accounts, and news stories that have been aired I don't understand how anyone can still be assuming Zimmerman is guilty of killing an innocent "kid." Was it poor judgment on Zimmerman's part? In hindsight, yes it was. Is Zimmerman a racist guilty of a murderous hate crime? I think you're lying to yourself if you are already convinced the answer is yes.
Just a question, but does the "Stand your Ground" law allow a person to follow/pursuit/stalk another? Is it only for a person to "have a right to be" and "no duty to retreat" such that they do not have to move away, but gives them no right to do the above 3 things?
So Zimmerman, when confronted by police claimed he stepped out of his vehicle to check which street he was on and was attacked from behind, but when on the call with the non-emergency operator, he admitted to following Martin.
Isn't this immediate grounds to open an investigation and put this man on trial? It seems clear that there are several discrepancies in the entire situation. You would think it's enough to call for a trial.
On March 29 2012 08:54 nalgene wrote: Just a question, but does the "Stand your Ground" law allow a person to follow/pursuit/stalk another? Is it only for a person to "have a right to be" and "no duty to retreat" such that they do not have to move away, but gives them no right to do the above 3 things?
Zimmerman's lawyer has said stand your ground doesn't apply, regular self defense applies.
Meanwhile, a lawyer for the man at the center of the death investigation said Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't apply to the shooting that killed the teen.
"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"
On March 29 2012 08:33 Silidons wrote: news stations such as faux news and your general unconvinced civilian for some reason love to point "HEY LOOK HE DID THIS IN THE PAST, HE USED DRUGS! SO HE WAS A BAD PERSON!" but they don't actually understand the entire point of this fucking shooting, is that at the time of the shooting he was actually doing nothing wrong. what type of country do we really live in that killing someone who was unarmed and minding their own business justified if they smoke weed, has sucker punched someone before, was suspended from school? does this somehow justify the killing of him? obviously not and i don't want to live in a country that thinks it does (or its civilians that think it does).
They're trying to point out a flaw in the credibility that Travyon was a "harmless boy who never did anything to anyone".
I can't even tell you how many times in Chicago that when a kid is shot(most seem to be African American, but that is REALLY beside the point, there have been Hispanic/Whites as well) no one ever has anything negative to say about the child.
I'm really skeptical about this case. At first I was sure he killed the kid in cold blood, but then Zimmerman somehow gets punched in the face and the back of the head(I believe that was it)? Something doesn't add up imo.
On March 29 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote: same situation, but the other guy gets up, smashes a bottle on the bar and starts towards me with the broken bottle in his hand. i back up and say "fuck, im sorry dude" and try to run away. he still comes at me with the bottle. then i kill him. this is an arguable self defense.
Well, I know what I'm doing tonight!
But seriously, it sounds like self-defense is largely defined by who escalates the conflict, versus who initiates it. Correct?
just recognize that by pushing the guy off the bar stool, you are committing a battery. self defense based on any subsequent act by the other person does not change the fact that you originally broke the law, and could go to jail for it.
i dont want to play semantics games, but if i understand correctly how you use those words that seems to be a fairly accurate representation. it is entirely possible for two people fighting to both act in self defense at certain points during the fight. if that doesnt make sense to you, welcome to the world of law and reasonableness standards. =D
EPT
