The Trayvon Martin Case
- Thread starter DiamondDust
- Start date
- Status
Since you say that you would physically attack someone who you thought was following you, that is probably a good idea.chanson78;2172563[B said:
Unfortunately that is the law, and fortunately it is the law. The law isn't perfect but if we allow people to go around physically assaulting those because they are following them or simply saying things to them then we're going to open a can of worms that we will not be able to deal with. Again, the law isn't perfect.
"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."
West later apologized for the joke, saying he was sorry if he offended anyone.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/2...ents-in-george-zimmerman-trial/#ixzz2XEvMYFDS
Probably not the brightest move to insult the jury by implying their ignorance.
West later apologized for the joke, saying he was sorry if he offended anyone.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/2...ents-in-george-zimmerman-trial/#ixzz2XEvMYFDS
Probably not the brightest move to insult the jury by implying their ignorance.
Would think if I were the follower, AND "started" an altercation, THEN got my butt handed to me because of it,,,,, I would not have any rights to do anything other than take my whoopin and crawl home.
Close as I can tell this is what happened before the gun play.
Close as I can tell this is what happened before the gun play.
It depends on what you consider "starting" an altercation
If you're like chanson, then you think following and asking questions started it.
As far as I can tell, most states (if not all) agree with this.
That's essentially what the trial is about - who attacked who?
This is why the media bias is so maddening here - they conveniently ignored TM's pics/comments regarding pot-smoking, guns, fighting, etc and played him out to be this small, innocent child munching on Skittles and iced tea who was murdered in cold blood by some racist - they ran with that from the get-go.
We'll see what happens, but I doubt it's as starkly black-and-white as it was portrayed...
It would definitely put someone on edge. But due to TM not being around to give his side of the story because the guy who was following him and asking questions shot and killed him, I guess its up to whatever the jury believes likely happened.
I guess thats my whole point, being followed and who knows what else happened that night, could legitimately have put TM in a state of mind that he was in a life or death situation. If he had been the one who shot and killed GZ would people be willing to stand up for the SYG law in his case?
If he were responding to violence or an overt threat, yes.
If he were initiating violence in response to being followed and questioned, no.
I got to digging, and that isn't necessarily the case.
The Tampa Bay Times did some investigations attempting to relate SYG cases to the TM incident.
Here is one on neutral property (the shooters workplace but not his private property), no clear signs of a physical altercation where the shooter was never brought up on charges.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_194
Here is another where a guy in an apartment shot and killed a seventh day adventist who was banging on windows but no true altercation.Tampa Bay Times Case 194 said:
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_115
I tried to be honest and evaluate an instance when there was neutral property, no physical altercation, and someone actually was not prosecuted or was acquitted due to the SYG law. In both of the above cases, the deceased were the ones who encroached on someone else's personal space and made them feel threatened. Neither of the deceased were carrying weapons, and there were no actual physical blows between the parties. In contrast with the TM case, the deceased in the above cases were not the ones carrying the guns nor starting the altercation.Tampa Bay Times Case 115 said:
Would you say that had TM been the one who pulled a gun and killed GZ after being followed, accosted with words/questions and approached in a dark area between two apartment buildings that he should not be prosecuted based upon the above precedence?
The whole thing comes down to what exactly is the definition of being threatened? The first case had no charges brought because "under a new state law that allows the use of force when a person is being threatened." Since GZ effectively is able to tell a one sided story excepting the physical evidence, there is only his feelings on the situation. What if TM had been the one who killed GZ? TM would likely have a compelling argument that he was being threatened, and felt he had no recourse but to shoot GZ.
The selection of checkboxes used by the Tampa Bay Times includes "Did the victim initiate the confrontation?" but not "Did the victim initiate violence?"
This is a crucial element. "Feeling threatened" is not sufficient to warrant initiation of violence. The threat must be actual.
In the first case, there was no mention of violence. First guy comes to carwash, first guy argues with second guy, first guy dies.
Lets go to the source: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html
You maintain that being threatened requires violence. I maintain that if I were being followed by someone in an unmarked car for several blocks and they decided to come up to me in an alley between apartment buildings without identifying themselves, I would definitely feel threatened. Some would likely argue reasonably so.776.012 Use of force in defense of person said:
BTW Paragraph 2 of section 776.041 is likely to be the pivotal statute in this case.
I feel threatened when I walk down a street at night and am badgered by a homeless drunk around 5 Points in Birmingham. Can I initiate physical contact (or shoot him) if he persists and curses me?
"Feeling threatened" is not the same as reasonably believing one is in imminent danger of death of great bodily harm. That happens when someone is beating you mercilessly, or is pointing a gun at you, or some other overt threat.
Ok, but if you turn around a throw the first punch and then the other guy shoots you, wouldn't he be acting in self defense now?
According to Florida law, sure you can. As long as yours is the only story that gets told. Most people however don't seek out the chance that their freedom will be in the hands of someone else deciding whether it was a reasonable threat. Even fewer people actively follow people in the middle of the night, get in a confrontation with someone with no weapon, and kill that person. Mind you I am not advocating going out and doing any of those things. However, yet again while trying to put myself in someone else's shoes, can you honestly say that if a person had been following you for several blocks in an unmarked car and they come out an approach you in a poorly lit area with little or no identification of their intent or purpose, that you wouldn't think they had potential to cause you harm?
Which begs the question. If TM had a gun and had shot GZ, would he be protected from prosecution under SYG? Lets say he did throw a punch or shoved GZ away when he was approached by GZ. Given the outcome, and the fact that I think someone could reasonably paint a picture that he was being harassed, likely turning to threatened due to being approached in a dark area more likely to conceal someones nefarious actions, it makes more sense for someone to shoot first and ask questions later. That is to me the danger of the SYG law. My definition of threatened is obviously different than many on this boards. Having such an objective qualification for being able to take someones life seems a bit silly.
Chanson: Do you think GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder (I think that is the charge, correct me if wrong) beyond reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt, IMO is the key to this case, and is supposed to be the standard for criminal burden of proof. In my opinion, this case has reasonable doubt written all over it, perhaps even without SYG law.
Reasonable doubt, IMO is the key to this case, and is supposed to be the standard for criminal burden of proof. In my opinion, this case has reasonable doubt written all over it, perhaps even without SYG law.
Potential to cause harm is not justification for anything.
If someone approaches me in the dark and starts asking questions, I will a) keep my distance, and b) answer or refuse to answer questions depending on whether I believe they are legitimate questions. If someone is asking me to justify my presence, I would probably answer "What are you doing here?" or "Do you live around here?" If someone is cornering me, and saying things like "You lost? You don't belong here." I might feel threatened, but attacking the questioner is still not okay. I may be legitimately afraid, but I am still not in imminent danger. If they physically try to prevent me from leaving, or wrestle me down, or strike me, I am justified in using force to retaliate, but even that is not legal justification for the use of deadly force, even under Stand Your Ground. Again, imminent danger of death or great bodily harm is the standard. If they are pointing a gun at me, or pull a knife, or are beating my head against the pavement, then deadly force is protected under Stand Your Ground.
Zimmerman's wounds to the face and the back of his head support the justified use of deadly force against his attacker, Trayvon Martin. I am unaware of any evidence of Martin being in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm prior to the altercation in which Zimmerman sustained injuries, but Martin apparently did not.
Last edited:
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-