White man shoots innocent black teen....

[uptownlivin90]

Right on target (pardon the pun). See, we can discuss this like sane adults, if we try. Now, the key words Si, are "combat is a choice". Somebody had to make a decision to take the verbal confrontation here (which we know occurred) and make it PHYSICAL. The question now is, WHO did that. Did Zimmerman grab Martin, or did Martin strike Zimmerman first ?

I've been saying that this entire time. Here's the thing though:

I honestly think it's too late in the game to ever truly determine WHO made it physical beyond the shadow of a doubt.

We can speculate and we can do so based on the situation and on the records of both individuals. Trayvon had a clear record, evidenced by the fact that police could not identify him because his fingerprints weren't in the system. It's hard for me to assume he initiated contact.

In the long run though, evidence is too stale. Even if there was a witness who saw the whole thing, it still might be written off, the investigation took to long and the authorities didn't seem interested in truly determining who actually initiated the "combat" if combat ever occurred.

It's been my opinion that Zimmerman will walk free, since I first saw this case. It was set up that way. One thing I'll say about Zimmerman, he's obviously not stupid. He knew exactly what to say and what not to say.

I'm guessing that is the case as well. He's a wannabe copper and self-appointed neighborhood watch dude. He lived for this stuff - looked for shit where there was none because that fulfilled his apparent sad and pathetic life. So, I'm guessing he knew the law quite well.

I thought for a moment about the possibility that maybe Zimmy was the one breaking into houses in his neighborhood just to give himself something to do...

 

[Crackerjack]

Exactly why it's not smart to stalk people and try to take justice into your own hands being a one man vigilante show.

The sad thing is, something deep in me is absolutely sure that is what happened. What scares me is thinking what I might have done having put myself in that exact situation, especially when I was 17. Scary to think this very well could have been me.

Going to a convenience store to get candy & bottled tea can happen every day, to anyone. It is NOT every day that police do not investigate a killing.

I'm perfectly in agreement with you. I have the same questions you do...

I'm just saying we've seen this kind of thing play out before. The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

We're not talking just any court, either. We're talking about a Florida jury, where the rules of logic and reason rarely seem to apply.

My prediction -- the grand jury indicts him, but the petit jury acquits him.

 

[Emma]

I honestly think it's too late in the game to ever truly determine WHO made it physical beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I agree. Zimmerman's going to walk, regardless of whether he's ultimately charged.

I know what I believe happened. I heard the tapes. I saw the map and the streets and where the initial call was placed and where the shooting occurred. I saw how far Zimmerman followed (chased?) Martin. Two-tenths of a mile isn't very far, but in a situation like this it's far enough for Zimmerman to have heeded the advice of the dispatcher and let the police check Martin out. IMO he went looking for a confrontation. I don't see a 17 year old, 140 lb kid with a can of ice tea as his only weapon initiating an attack on a man who not only outweighs him by a hundred pounds, but is toting a gun besides.

Zimmerman saw himself as the community protector. He saw someone he didn't recognize, and didn't believe belonged in his neighborhood. He took it upon himself to track this kid, and things spiraled out of control. Once it was over, and Zimmerman realized what he'd done, he had an "oh shit!" moment. He knew that people had to have heard the cries for help. He knew he was fucked if police decided he had no cause to shoot this young man. He also knew the law. So he tells paramedics he called for help and no one came. jmo, of course.

 

[Peach]

Exactly why it's not smart to stalk people and try to take justice into your own hands being a one man vigilante show.

The sad thing is, something deep in me is absolutely sure that is what happened. What scares me is thinking what I might have done having put myself in that exact situation, especially when I was 17. Scary to think this very well could have been me.

Going to a convenience store to get candy & bottled tea can happen every day, to anyone. It is NOT every day that police do not investigate a killing.

I'm perfectly in agreement with you. I have the same questions you do...

I'm just saying we've seen this kind of thing play out before. The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

The lack of any real investigation by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department makes this a HUGE story.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Going to a convenience store to get candy & bottled tea can happen every day, to anyone. It is NOT every day that police do not investigate a killing.

I'm perfectly in agreement with you. I have the same questions you do...

I'm just saying we've seen this kind of thing play out before. The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

We're not talking just any court, either. We're talking about a Florida jury, where the rules of logic and reason rarely seem to apply.

My prediction -- the grand jury indicts him, but the petit jury acquits him.

That MIGHT happen because of all the media attention this case has been given. But I personally have this feeling they won't indict him. I agree that if they do however he will the petit jury will let him walk.

 

[The Gadfly]

Exactly why it's not smart to stalk people and try to take justice into your own hands being a one man vigilante show.

The sad thing is, something deep in me is absolutely sure that is what happened. What scares me is thinking what I might have done having put myself in that exact situation, especially when I was 17. Scary to think this very well could have been me.

Going to a convenience store to get candy & bottled tea can happen every day, to anyone. It is NOT every day that police do not investigate a killing.

I'm perfectly in agreement with you. I have the same questions you do...

I'm just saying we've seen this kind of thing play out before. The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

Uptown, that is the unfortunate part of our judicial process. When you put a priority on protecting the rights of the innocent, the guilty sometimes walk free. That's not very satisfying, but lean the other way, even a little, and we put innocent people in prison (that already happens as it is), or worse. We reached a consensus long ago in America, that it's better to let ten guilty men walk free, than convict one innocent one. I believe that's right, but it doesn't always FEEL right.

 

[Emma]

The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

I think he will. I don't think he's smart enough to learn his lesson; conversely, I think it will make him believe he can get away with shit like this and somewhere down the line it'll catch up to him. I just hope another person isn't killed before that happens.

 

[Peach]

Going to a convenience store to get candy & bottled tea can happen every day, to anyone. It is NOT every day that police do not investigate a killing.

I'm perfectly in agreement with you. I have the same questions you do...

I'm just saying we've seen this kind of thing play out before. The evidence might not be there to convict him in the court of law and the idiot might get away free with bloody hands.

Uptown, that is the unfortunate part of our judicial process. When you put a priority on protecting the rights of the innocent, the guilty sometimes walk free. That's not very satisfying, but lean the other way, even a little, and we put innocent people in prison (that already happens as it is), or worse. We reached a consensus long ago in America, that it's better to let ten guilty men walk free, than convict one innocent one. I believe that's right, but it doesn't always FEEL right.

No investigation at the scene STINKS.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry bro but that makes no sense to me, you can shoot someone but that doesn't necessarily mean you will be arrested? man I need a drink.

No. It certainly doesn't mean you will necessarily be arrested.

Simple hypothetical. Say you were in France the other day when that al qaeda piece of shit was deliberately killing little children. You happened to have quick access to a gun. Before he can kill the next child, as he is about to do so, you carefully aim, pull the trigger and splatter is filthy brains on a nearby wall.

Did you commit a crime?

Nope.

Should you be arrested?

Nope.

Thats not the same thing though, Zimmerman was not saving anyone from terrorists.

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

 

[High_Gravity]

No. It certainly doesn't mean you will necessarily be arrested.

Simple hypothetical. Say you were in France the other day when that al qaeda piece of shit was deliberately killing little children. You happened to have quick access to a gun. Before he can kill the next child, as he is about to do so, you carefully aim, pull the trigger and splatter is filthy brains on a nearby wall.

Did you commit a crime?

Nope.

Should you be arrested?

Nope.

Thats not the same thing though, Zimmerman was not saving anyone from terrorists.

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

Ok I got you.

 

[Emma]

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

 

[Si modo]

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

I think that's a statement he makes for political gain. Legislators make law, but the interpretation of it is for the courts. The question of law is always in the court, not the legislature.

I think he wants to cover his political ass because he championed a shit law.

 

[Liability]

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

 

[Si modo]

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

Not in Florida. They have stand your ground laws.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[High_Gravity]

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

Not in Florida. They have stand your ground laws.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Do these stand your ground laws apply to minors? I heard someone say they don't.

 

[Peach]

The author of this law (name escapes me, I linked it earlier) said that it was intended to allow deadly force in situations where one felt an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, or to protect another from same, or if witnessing ... a felony? Can't recall what the specifics are there. In any case, he said that by following Martin, Zimmerman negated his defense by this law. fwiw

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

Not in Florida. They have stand your ground laws.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

And Martin could inflict great bodily harm or death HOW?

 

[Liability]

Thats not the same thing though, Zimmerman was not saving anyone from terrorists.

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

Ok I got you.

Off topic:

It LOOKS like the lass in your avie is convinced that the beer goes right to her tits.

She might be right.

 

[Si modo]

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

Not in Florida. They have stand your ground laws.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

And Martin could inflict great bodily harm or death HOW?

I'm wondering if you are being obtuse on purpose.

He has arms and legs, you know.

Or, had.

 

[High_Gravity]

I didn't say he was. It was just AN example of the law of justification.

And frankly, I don't know that Zimmerman has ANY valid claim (even a color-able one) to the defense of justification or necessity.

All I WAS saying is that there ARE situations where even though the cops know full well that a person pulled the trigger, they also see no valid probable cause for an arrest. Justification (self defense or defense of another) is but one set of examples of that principle.

Ok I got you.

Off topic:

It LOOKS like the lass in your avie is convinced that the beer goes right to her tits.

She might be right.

I am not a fan of marriage but I will totally marry this girl, any woman who can handle a 40 ounce like that has my respect.

 

[Si modo]

I don't know if that's true. A neighborhood watch guy might be well within his legal rights to follow a person for any reason. And if (I have no idea if the "if" is valid or not), but IF the situation then escalates, the fact that he had followed him should have no bearing on the matter.

I do know that in NY, before a person permitted to employ deadly physical force in reliance on the law of "justification," among other things, the person is obligated to retreat if he can do so in complete safety (except for cops or folks inside their own homes where there is no duty to retreat). I don't know if FL has a similar provision in their law.

Not in Florida. They have stand your ground laws.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Do these stand your ground laws apply to minors? I heard someone say they don't.

Dunno. Here's what it says with respect to that:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

blahblahblah

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

blahblahblah

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or