|
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 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:02 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. We do have evidence. All of which points to him being the attacker. If you are chasing someone as a civilian you are the attacker, the only exception being if you are assisting an officer. That can't apply in this case since he was told by police to not interfere. you have conjecture and speculation based on what the internet has provided you. the police don't arrest and prosecute people without actual evidence. im not sure where you are getting these rules from. obviously chasing someone tends to show that you are an aggressor, but its not conclusive.
What else is there to base my opinion on exactly? We're never going to have 100% information so we base our opinions on what is available. All the evidence on the internet that I've seen makes it clear that he was indeed the aggressor.
- He made a call to the police, was told to hold his position and didn't
- the boy is screaming no and help for a long period of time before a gunshot goes off
From the first point, he was clearly in a point of safety where he could have stopped and this would have never happened. From the second point, he was chasing after the teenager and forced a confrontation in which he executed the person he was chasing.
I haven't studied law, but I'm pretty sure that is first or second degree murder (leaning on second). He had intent to kill the teenager when he chased after him with a loaded handgun. At the very least it is manslaughter and he should be arrested.
|
On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, follow unarmed kids and than call it selfdefense?
ummm, no. where did i say that?
are you okay with a world where people determine the innocence of a man based on news reports and youtube videos? where, if the police dont arrest and the jury dont convict, then they are going to riot? because im not.
|
On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking.
After I call the police and they tell me not to? Absolutely not.
|
On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking.
I would not. That's a job for the police, who he just called for that very reason. There's no sense in putting yourself in harms way like that after calling the police.
|
On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, follow unarmed kids and than call it selfdefense?
You wouldn't run around a populated area shooting people and expect to get away with it. The fact is is that he won't be in that watch anymore and if there are any other "incidents" with him hes going to go away for murder quickly.
You can't just have one event decide your viewpoint on an issue and call yourself an informed citizen. If the races where switched do you think that the situation would be different to you?
|
On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, join a neighbourhood watch, follow unarmed kids, shoot them and than call it selfdefense?
Where can any nitwit get a gun, and a concealed gun license to carry it anywhere he wants?
|
My heart goes out to the family, friends, and community of the victim.
+ Show Spoiler +I hope this Zimmerman bastard rots in the deepest pit in hell for eternity.
|
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle]
where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a
reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself]
[another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or
attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that
[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to
believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such
circumstances.
Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the
relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
These look like the applicable portions of the jury instructions. There are also some bits about use of force on someone during the comission of a felony or escaping the comission of a felony, which Martin was not and Zimmerman had no reason to believe.
You also get more latitude with the use of non-deadly force (some of which seem like they may apply), but I think we can all agree a firearm is deadly force.
None of this supports Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
*I'm really glad Daphreak posted this link. It should probably also get a spot in the OP so we're all talking about the same self-defense law.
|
On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate.
i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice.
he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide.
|
On March 22 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, follow unarmed kids and than call it selfdefense? ummm, no. where did i say that? are you okay with a world where people determine the innocence of a man based on news reports and youtube videos? where, if the police dont arrest and the jury dont convict, then they are going to riot? because im not.
You're trying way to hard to hide your very mediocre intelligence behind a facade of fake rationality.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide.
yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you.
|
On March 22 2012 10:18 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, follow unarmed kids and than call it selfdefense? ummm, no. where did i say that? are you okay with a world where people determine the innocence of a man based on news reports and youtube videos? where, if the police dont arrest and the jury dont convict, then they are going to riot? because im not. You're trying way to hard to hide your very mediocre intelligence behind a facade of fake rationality.
i drafted a response to that, but decided you arent worth it so i deleted it.
|
On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you.
you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence.
|
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt.
|
Self defense laws at their finest
Hopefully this incident will help our state governments rethink the laws they've put in recently.
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
So its not murder when you pick a fight with someone then shoot them to death?
How is that any different than shooting someone to death?
|
On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence.
Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say.
|
so let me get this straight if u an individual get into an argument with someone then they can just draw a gun and shoot someone thats so stupid, if u think that you may be in danger then u move away and aviod said danger or remove urself from danger (excepting situations where someone suddnely pulls a knife on u out of no where or something similar). Then if the person follows, or trails u then u have the right to defend yourself as you have tried to aviod a situation that would have required force. (regarding force sometimes therre dosent need to be intend to do lethal harm it maybe just done in self defense as was the case recently in sydney where to guys had an argument one walked away while the other followed while be abusive and then placed his hand on the 1st persons shoulder upon which that individual turned around and struck him once in the head causing death)
|
Really? The guy admitted to the shooting an unarmed kid. Which is normally a crime. He should have to present evidence that it was self-defense, instead of needing evidence against it to prosecute him. If he commits what is normally a crime(murder), and can't prove it was justified(self-defense), he committed a crime. That's how any other crimes work, if you are in possession of something illegal(for ease, let's say prescription pills), and you can't prove it's justified(it's your prescription), you get charged with a crime. The law can be really fucked up sometimes...
|
On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide.
If you read the whole OP, and see what the "stand your ground law" actually includes, you'll see that he didn't do anything illegal anyway.
It's fully legal to use lethal force if you 'feel threatened', which there's no way to prove that he didn't.
As also cited in the OP, you can pretty much walk into someone's house and slaughter the whole family and get away scot free, as you can argue that you felt threatened.
A fake law as an excuse for anarchy.
|
On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
Witnesses disagree. At least one woman told police that she heard Martin screaming for help, and the police told her she was wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
