Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See, I'm still not comfortable in the soundness of that assumption, especially when the 911 operator tried to arrange for a meeting place between him and the cops. Zimmerman would not agree to meet them when the 911 operator suggested the clubhouse (I believe it was the clubhouse), rather he told the operator to have the cops call him when they got there.Where are you getting that? On the tape, I hear Zimmerman saying "OK" when the 911 operator told him they don't need him to follow Martin, but I would have to assume that meant Zimmerman stopped.Yes it did when Martin ran Zimmerman went after him, Zimmerman had already identified martin as someone who was acting strange looked like he was on something.
However when Zimmerman was asked to not follow Martin he stopped and went back to his vehicle waiting for the police to arrive.
Ask yourself this why would Zimmerman shoot Martin knowing that the police were in route?
I'm not convinced that assumption is a sound one.
Is there something else to indicate Zimmerman went back to his car?
He knew the police were coming and was going to meet them at certain location. Common sense would tell you that he would not continue to look for Martin knowing he was to supposed to meet with police in another location.
See, I'm still not comfortable in the soundness of that assumption, especially when the 911 operator tried to arrange for a meeting place between him and the cops. Zimmerman would not agree to meet them, rather he told the operator to have the cops call him when they got there.Where are you getting that? On the tape, I hear Zimmerman saying "OK" when the 911 operator told him they don't need him to follow Martin, but I would have to assume that meant Zimmerman stopped.
I'm not convinced that assumption is a sound one.
Is there something else to indicate Zimmerman went back to his car?
He knew the police were coming and was going to meet them at certain location. Common sense would tell you that he would not continue to look for Martin knowing he was to supposed to meet with police in another location.
No idea.The call to police + where the shooting took place shows that Zimmerman did follow Martin.911 tapes dont support your claims and show he didnt follow him.
Yes it did when Martin ran Zimmerman went after him, Zimmerman had already identified martin as someone who was acting strange looked like he was on something.
However when Zimmerman was asked to not follow Martin he stopped and went back to his vehicle waiting for the police to arrive.
Ask yourself this why would Zimmerman shoot Martin knowing that the police were in route?
No idea.The call to police + where the shooting took place shows that Zimmerman did follow Martin.
Yes it did when Martin ran Zimmerman went after him, Zimmerman had already identified martin as someone who was acting strange looked like he was on something.
However when Zimmerman was asked to not follow Martin he stopped and went back to his vehicle waiting for the police to arrive.
Ask yourself this why would Zimmerman shoot Martin knowing that the police were in route?
but if you look at a map where he said he was parked (and would meet the cops ) vs where the shooting took place, it's obvious he continued to follow Martin after being told not to.
No idea.Yes it did when Martin ran Zimmerman went after him, Zimmerman had already identified martin as someone who was acting strange looked like he was on something.
However when Zimmerman was asked to not follow Martin he stopped and went back to his vehicle waiting for the police to arrive.
Ask yourself this why would Zimmerman shoot Martin knowing that the police were in route?
but if you look at a map where he said he was parked (and would meet the cops ) vs where the shooting took place, it's obvious he continued to follow Martin after being told not to.
What map?
Saveliberty's Zimmerman/Martin policy starting today until the report comes out: No more theories or comments that might put either person's character in a bad light.
Saveliberty's Zimmerman/Martin policy starting today until the report comes out: No more theories or comments that might put either person's character in a bad light.
No idea.
but if you look at a map where he said he was parked (and would meet the cops ) vs where the shooting took place, it's obvious he continued to follow Martin after being told not to.
What map?
Besides which, it wouldn't show he followed him AFTER he said he'd stopped, because you don't know where he was when he lost Martin or how far he'd moved.
Fail.
It is strange, Uptown. You see, what the legislature was TRYING to do, was simply get rid of the "duty to retreat"; the idea was an extension of the "castle doctrine" from the home to the outside. The idea was that the old common law "duty to retreat" could put an unreasonable burden on someone trying to defend himself (primarily against lethal force). Well and good, and in and of itself, there's nothing really wrong with that. The problem comes in because of the way this particular law tried to do that; inadvertently or not, it actually does quite a bit more. Basically it seems to extend the concept of self-defense (to include use of lethal force,yet) to any case where someone is attacked, without having first broken any other law himself! That superficially sounds OK too, UNTIL you consider all the potential ramifications; at which point it's like intending to open a narrow gateway, and instead creating something you could literally drive a semi through! That IS crazy, and the more one looks at it, the crazier it looks. All I can say is, it's not the first time a bad criminal statute was created with good intentions, and a poor choice of words. Do you remember a case in GA a few years back, where the legislature had passed a new child sodomy statute that made oral sex with a minor under 16 child molestation? The problem was, that the law was worded in such a way, that it could also allow another minor who had oral sex with an underage partner to be charged with an offense that carried something like a fifteen year minimum sentence That was clearly not the intent, but that's what the law said, and sure enough, a prosecutor charged a 17 year old with this for getting oral sex from a sixteen year old at a party. He wasn't, as I recall, even chargeable with statutory rape IF he had intercourse with the girl, which he did not (not enough age difference, by law) but the prosecutor used the child molestation statute to throw the book at him over a BJ.. Just to compound that, the legislature fixed the defective language that made that possible the next year, but failed to make it retroactive, so the kid's sentence stood, the prosecutor stood his ground, in spite of the obvious injustice of the thing, and it eventually took a lot of outcry, and the state supreme court, no less, to right the outrageous wrong that had been done. Badly written law, alas, has unforeseen consequences, and I'm afraid that may be the case in this current instance. The problem is, you can fix the statute, but there's no way to make the fix retroactive to this case; it is a good deal easier to revise a law to let someone OUT of jail , than revise one, to put someone IN jail-I don't think the latter would pass constitutional muster, among other things.Uptown, with many self-defense statutes, that's how it works. This particular Florida law looks different, in that all Zimmerman has to show is that he acted lawfully, up until the moment he drew the gun and fired. That's a CRUCIAL distinction. With most old-style (common law) self defense statutes, Zimmerman would have to show that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. The standard for "reasonable" is normally ordinary common sense. That's how the law we have here in SC works. Now it appears, that under the applicable Florida law, Zimmerman only has to show one of those things (number 3, above) and that he was where he was lawfully, and was not in violation of another criminal statute. Not only is that a lower burden of proof; on top of it, the "lawfully present" and not acting "unlawfully" language seems to put the burden of proving that part back on the state, as a person is normally PRESUMED to be acting lawfully, absent a showing of a violation of (another) statute. By that standard , an act may be stupid, or even reckless, without being "unlawful". That part of it may well be why the State Attorney who initially reviewed the case refused to charge it, and if I understand correctly that this is a fairly new statute, may also account for some confusion on the part of the Sanford police as to whether they thought Zimmerman's actions appeared to be self-defense. To put it another way, under the law in SC, he likely would NOT be able to make an affirmative showing of self defense; where under the Florida law, as written, the prosecution has a FAR more difficult case. I really think, from a lot of comments I've seen here, that not quite fully appreciating the difference has created considerable misunderstanding of why the case wasn't charged in the beginning, and why it's not a given that it will (or even should be) charged now, unless new evidence comes to light. To further complicate matters, the more recent the statute, the less guidance there is, in the way of established judicial precedent in interpreting it. This whole thing may be less about race, or recklessness, than about confusion over a law that looks extremely loose in its wording. Ever heard of making something so simple it becomes confusing and complicated? That may be the case here; not so much what the law says, as what it DOESN'T say.
Okay, thank you.
That's really interesting, and extremely strange. I was under the impression that only number 4 of the listed criteria is no longer necessary under Florida Law. I had assumed 1-3 were still in order, that he would have to prove that:
(1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable,
If Zimmerman started the confrontation unreasonably that would fall under #1. If he did pull out his gun and Trayvon began beating on him because of that that's #2. But then Trayvon would be able to claim self-defense too because #3 is all that applies, either party could have started the fight, aggravated it, and then killed the other and claimed self-defense... if what you're saying is correct. *ouch my brain hurts*
In that case, I don't see what on Earth Zimmerman or Trayvon could have done that was illegal in the state of Florida. If your characterization of the law is correct... that law is absolutely insane, and I'm JUST NOW realizing how insane it actually is.
Saveliberty's Zimmerman/Martin policy starting today until the report comes out: No more theories or comments that might put either person's character in a bad light.
Maybe this discussion was good it appears it's made you more neutral instead of aggressive against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is guilty it will be found out.,
Uptown, there's a link to the statute in the earlier portion of one of these Zimmerman/Martin threads. If you can find it, look at the language yourself. C _Clayton_Jones posted a legal analysis of what it says as well, it's either in this thread or the other oldest one. Read those, and see if you agree with me. Yes, in this case, I think either party really could have killed the other, and then claimed self defense, so long as there was no evidence he attacked the other first. Obviously, if that's the case, this law HAS to be changed.
Exactly. The Florida law flipped the script.Uptown, there's a link to the statute in the earlier portion of one of these Zimmerman/Martin threads. If you can find it, look at the language yourself. C _Clayton_Jones posted a legal analysis of what it says as well, it's either in this thread or the other oldest one. Read those, and see if you agree with me. Yes, in this case, I think either party really could have killed the other, and then claimed self defense, so long as there was no evidence he attacked the other first. Obviously, if that's the case, this law HAS to be changed.
Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?
From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.
Uptown, there's a link to the statute in the earlier portion of one of these Zimmerman/Martin threads. If you can find it, look at the language yourself. C _Clayton_Jones posted a legal analysis of what it says as well, it's either in this thread or the other oldest one. Read those, and see if you agree with me. Yes, in this case, I think either party really could have killed the other, and then claimed self defense, so long as there was no evidence he attacked the other first. Obviously, if that's the case, this law HAS to be changed.
Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?
From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.
Exactly. The Florida law flipped the script.Uptown, there's a link to the statute in the earlier portion of one of these Zimmerman/Martin threads. If you can find it, look at the language yourself. C _Clayton_Jones posted a legal analysis of what it says as well, it's either in this thread or the other oldest one. Read those, and see if you agree with me. Yes, in this case, I think either party really could have killed the other, and then claimed self defense, so long as there was no evidence he attacked the other first. Obviously, if that's the case, this law HAS to be changed.
Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?
From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.
It's a bad law.
Why? Laws are written and revised in legislatures, not in courts.Florida's law is what makes this most important going forward.
Saveliberty's Zimmerman/Martin policy starting today until the report comes out: No more theories or comments that might put either person's character in a bad light.
Maybe this discussion was good it appears it's made you more neutral instead of aggressive against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is guilty it will be found out.,
Your speculating AGAIN. Death by violence should be throughly investigated. Media should stay out of active investigations. Florida's law needs to be changed.
I couldn't agree more with you on that. Most self-defense laws cover that already.Exactly. The Florida law flipped the script.Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?
From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.
It's a bad law.
I don't think it is. A person has a right to defend themselves no matter where they are if the threat warrants using force with force.
