Negligent Homicide?

[jwoodie]

I don't know if this is a crime in Florida, but it seems like Zimmerman could be guilty of this (but certainly not of murder). When someone brings a gun into a situation (outside of home), they should be held responsible for the potential results. What say you?

 

[martybegan]

I don't know if this is a crime in Florida, but it seems like Zimmerman could be guilty of this (but certainly not of murder). When someone brings a gun into a situation (outside of home), they should be held responsible for the potential results. What say you?

He was legally permitted to be carrying the gun. He used the gun for its intended purpose (according to him) defense of himself from a bodily assault.

So by your rule someone who defends themself from an attack outside thier house would be guilty of negligent homicde soley for carrying a legal weapon.

Nope.

 

[eflatminor]

What say you?

If someone believes their life is in danger, they should have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

 

[jwoodie]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

 

[martybegan]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

 

[Defiant1]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

We get it. You don't like guns.

In Florida it is not a crime, in fact the law protects us from prosecution. Zimmerman will have one hell of a law suit against the state after he is acquitted.

 

[eflatminor]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner

You do realize that the police have NO DUTY to protect you, right? The Supreme Court even weighed in on this issue.

Therefore, I wonder if you're suggesting that it is wrong for people to look out for one another. Stated differently, should neighborhood watches be outlawed?

and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin.

On the other hand, had Martin not attacked Zimmerman...

Either way, there is no law, nor should there be, against someone following a person trespassing...in the dark...in the rain...with their identity concealed. Again, are you suggesting we should outlaw neighborhood watches?

Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have.

There is no way you could know this. Pure speculation on your part.

He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Until a jury finds him so...

 

[PratchettFan]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Since Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, Zimmerman was not intervening in a criminal action. I am curious, given that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman, what was he permitted to do to protect himself? If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

 

[martybegan]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Since Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, Zimmerman was not intervening in a criminal action. I am curious, given that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman, what was he permitted to do to protect himself? If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

You are not allowed to physically attack the person following you unless they take action to threaten you.

Being followed is a concern, but not a threatening action.

Once martin attacked zimmerman, the altercation was on him, Zimmerman's previous actions unless provoking or menancing do not come into play.

 

[eflatminor]

If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

You can walk on. You can tell your follower to piss off.

You cannot however physically attack your follower.

 

[PratchettFan]

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Since Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, Zimmerman was not intervening in a criminal action. I am curious, given that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman, what was he permitted to do to protect himself? If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

You are not allowed to physically attack the person following you unless they take action to threaten you.

Being followed is a concern, but not a threatening action.

Once martin attacked zimmerman, the altercation was on him, Zimmerman's previous actions unless provoking or menancing do not come into play.

Do we know who made the first contact? If Zimmerman had grabbed Martin's arm, what were Martin's options then?

 

[PratchettFan]

If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

You can walk on. You can tell your follower to piss off.

You cannot however physically attack your follower.

And if the follower won't piss off? What if the follower attempts to restrain you?

 

[eflatminor]

If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

You can walk on. You can tell your follower to piss off.

You cannot however physically attack your follower.

And if the follower won't piss off? What if the follower attempts to restrain you?

Different story. In such a case, you're free to defend yourself.

However, we have no evidence that is the case here, which is probably why the police chose not to prosecute and why the government appears to have no chance in convicting Zimmerman.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can walk on. You can tell your follower to piss off.

You cannot however physically attack your follower.

And if the follower won't piss off? What if the follower attempts to restrain you?

Different story. In such a case, you're free to defend yourself.

However, we have no evidence that is the case here, which is probably why the police chose not to prosecute and why the government appears to have no chance in convicting Zimmerman.

Yes. We have the testimony of Zimmerman and that is it. The other witness is dead. However, Zimmerman was following Martin - not the other way round. What reason would Martin have for attacking Zimmerman if not provoked? I don't know as I wasn't there, but I do not simply accept Zimmerman's account on its face. Whether he initiated the first physical contact or not, it is clear he initiated the conflict that led to it. I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't know if this is a crime in Florida, but it seems like Zimmerman could be guilty of this (but certainly not of murder). When someone brings a gun into a situation (outside of home), they should be held responsible for the potential results. What say you?

Definitely. He pursued Trayvon at his own decision. He used deadly force without the authority to do so. He should get 10 yrs. in my opinion. That would be justice served. Call it negligent homicide. That's fine. - Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Zimmerman would not have been a victim had he not followed Trayvon. He put himself in the situation. Woodie is right. I'm not a Trayvon fan either but facts should decide the case. Not emotionalism. - J.

 

[eflatminor]

And if the follower won't piss off? What if the follower attempts to restrain you?

Different story. In such a case, you're free to defend yourself.

However, we have no evidence that is the case here, which is probably why the police chose not to prosecute and why the government appears to have no chance in convicting Zimmerman.

Yes. We have the testimony of Zimmerman and that is it. The other witness is dead. However, Zimmerman was following Martin - not the other way round. What reason would Martin have for attacking Zimmerman if not provoked?

Could be lots of reasons. The 'maybe' list could be very long. For instance, maybe Martin felt it was okay to attack someone for merely following him. Maybe Martin was a racist and thought this was an opportunity to hurt the lighter skinned man. Maybe he was just plain stupid. And yes, maybe Zimmerman provoked him by attempting to physically restrain him. Doesn't really matter because when it comes to prosecuting someone, we're not supposed to do so on a 'maybe'. The evidence either support the defendant's claims or it doesn't...probably why the police didn't go forward with a prosecution in the first place.

Whatever the truth, there are other possible reasons than 'he was provoked'.

I don't know as I wasn't there, but I do not simply accept Zimmerman's account on its face.

Doesn't matter what you think. The court must DISPROVE Zimmerman's account. So far, they appear to be failing in that regard.

Whether he initiated the first physical contact or not, it is clear he initiated the conflict that led to it.

Are you suggesting we should outlaw neighborhood watches?

I'm glad I'm not on that jury

From what I read of your statements, so does justice.

 

[rdean]

I am no Travon Martin fan, but Zimmerman was acting in a law enforcement manner and would not have had to defend himself if he had not actively pursued Martin. Having a loaded weapon in his possession obviously emboldened him to act more aggressively than he should have. He certainly was no innocent crime victim.

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Since Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, Zimmerman was not intervening in a criminal action. I am curious, given that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman, what was he permitted to do to protect himself? If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

Martin is black. You will never get any of these right wingers to admit any other possibility than that kid was a dangerous thug that needed to be put down. Even something as obvious as, "If Zimmerman was being beaten and smothered, how was he able to get the safety disengaged and why were his injuries so slight?"

Martin is black, period. The endless anti black threads on this site underline what the white wingers feel about African Americans. If the races were reversed, Zimmerman would already be on death row and we all know it.

 

[eflatminor]

He used deadly force without the authority to do so.

Care to cite the law that requires 'authority' to use deadly force when one believes their life in danger?

 

[Defiant1]

Citizens have the right to intervene in criminal actions if they see them, we do not give these up to the police, we merely lend them to them.

So what your saying is if the police cannot handle crime in an area people are just supposed to accept the fact and wait to be victims?

Since Martin was not engaged in criminal activity, Zimmerman was not intervening in a criminal action. I am curious, given that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman, what was he permitted to do to protect himself? If you were just walking along minding your own business and I attempted to stop and interrogate you, are you supposed to just stand there and take it?

Martin is black. You will never get any of these right wingers to admit any other possibility than that kid was a dangerous thug that needed to be put down. Even something as obvious as, "If Zimmerman was being beaten and smothered, how was he able to get the safety disengaged and why were his injuries so slight?"

Martin is black, period. The endless anti black threads on this site underline what the white wingers feel about African Americans. If the races were reversed, Zimmerman would already be on death row and we all know it.

How do you know the safety was engaged? and what difference does it make?