George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty

[seekerz]

There are also the unaltered recording, which is what I listened to. Just because NBC edited doesn’t meant that is the only one available.

Pre-cisely.

 

[St_Francis]

Dunno about bank accounts, but I’m pretty sure, NO ONE has a spare life tucked away to replace one lost because of someone else’s assumptions.

I believe I made it clear that I am talking about a hypothetical case unrelated to the Martin case, in response to your comments about the stand your ground law, which was iirc enacted as the result of a number of elderly people being targeted by criminals because of their vulnerability.

Now, I am being attacked, threatened with a gun, or having someone I don’t know enter my house… *at what point do I get to “assume” this person means to harm me before I defend myself? *Do I have to wait until he has fired his gun? Do I have to wait until he’s choking me? Do I have to wait until he throws me out a window?

It’s not an *assumption *when someone attacks you or threatens you or enters your home; it a *reasonable conclusion. *You have the right to self defense. If people don’t want to get shot, then they should not attack people, threaten them with guns or knives, or enter their homes. That’s really very simple.

You can read about it here in the CCC.

 

[pnewton]

OK. Someone comes up to you and sticks a gun or knife in your face, and asks for your money.

How do you know he won’t hurt you after he gets the money? What will he do if you don’t have any money? Suppose all you have is your ATM card, is he going to ungently drag you to an ATM machine to take money out for him?

Now imagine that you are elderly. All the mugger has to do is to give you a push and you are in serious danger of breaking a hip or other bone, maybe one in your back. The elderly, of whom there are many in Florida, are much more vulnerable than younger people.

All that being said, I used the word attacker, and I used it for a reason, so as to reduce the ambiguity involved in a mere mugging.

Trayvon Martin did not go out to mugging. He went shopping. Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense will stand or fall on his ability to isolate the minute or so of physical altercation from the context of what precipitated it and his ability to convince a judge that things escalated to the point he was in immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury and that this is why he had to use deadly force at that time. This will not be an easy task, but it is possible.

We can use comparisons like muggers, rapist, home invaders, but they do not apply to this case. Mr Zimmerman will have to try and expand the concept of self-defense to a confrontation gone bad.

 

[St_Francis]

Procedure has a time and place. So does compassion. If they had knocked on every surrounding door, more likely than not, they’d have found his relatives.

Failing to do so just seems COLD.

I think we all understand that you think it is cold.

But you are forgetting that *before *they knew anything about Martin, they *didn’t know *if knocking on doors would get them anywhere in terms of identifying him. They had to make decisions about how to spend their limited resources: should they go knocking on doors, which might or might not yield any information? Or should they do some other things, like questioning the man who had killed him, gather evidence so that they would be able to sort out what steps to take, etc?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Well we don’t know what he would have done because the police never knocked. I’m assuming he’s old enough to use a telephone and call his dad to report that police had been at the door?

We have the benefit of hindsight, which is always 20/20. Police likely don’t often go knocking door to door in an effort to identify deceased people. Maybe they asked the witnesses they spoke with on scene and no witnesses knew Martin because he was only visiting, so they didn’t go further. I don’t see what they did as cold. Resources are limited and were likely used elsewhere on the case.

 

[seekerz]

I believe I made it clear that I am talking about a hypothetical case unrelated to the Martin case, in response to your comments about the stand your ground law, which was iirc enacted as the result of a number of elderly people being targeted by criminals because of their vulnerability.

Now, I am being attacked, threatened with a gun, or having someone I don’t know enter my house… *at what point do I get to “assume” this person means to harm me before I defend myself? *Do I have to wait until he has fired his gun? Do I have to wait until he’s choking me? Do I have to wait until he throws me out a window?

It’s not an *assumption *when someone attacks you or threatens you or enters your home; it a *reasonable conclusion. *You have the right to self defense. If people don’t want to get shot, then they should not attack people, threaten them with guns or knives, or enter their homes. That’s really very simple.

You can read about it here in the CCC.

Why are you referring me to the CCC? I know what it says, I live it and I would never support a law that gives self-defense* priority* over the simple ability to walk down the street and continue breathing. All life is precious and to be defended - beginning with the most vulnerable, as in: unarmed kid with candy and a drink gets a little more consideration than macho adult with a gun and nothing to shoot it at.

Also, please try not to confuse the issue. No one has been discussing home invasion that I’m aware of. This is about the duty to retreat, when retreat is an option. It’s not about duty to retreat when someone is pummeling the life out of you; that would be self defense, pure and simple assuming of course, you did not provoke said pummeling.

 

[St_Francis]

Trayvon Martin did not go out to mugging. He went shopping. Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense will stand or fall on his ability to isolate the minute or so of physical altercation from the context of what precipitated it and his ability to convince a judge that things escalated to the point he was in immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury and that this is why he had to use deadly force at that time. This will not be an easy task, but it is possible.

We can use comparisons like muggers, rapist, home invaders, but they do not apply to this case. Mr Zimmerman will have to try and expand the concept of self-defense to a confrontation gone bad.

I was responding to Seekerz’ critique of the SYG law, not the the facts of the Martin case.

 

[seekerz]

We have the benefit of hindsight, which is always 20/20. Police likely don’t often go knocking door to door in an effort to identify deceased people. Maybe they asked the witnesses they spoke with on scene and no witnesses knew Martin because he was only visiting, so they didn’t go further. I don’t see what they did as cold. Resources are limited and were likely used elsewhere on the case.

You don’t see it as cold. I see it as COLD. Allowable difference of opinions. Not sure what procedure is in such cases.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A question: How old is Trayvon’s little brother, the one who was left alone in the house? Just wondering, I see you have referred to him being alone.

 

[seekerz]

A question: How old is Trayvon’s little brother, the one who was left alone in the house? Just wondering, I see you have referred to him being alone.

He was on TV the other night. Looks to be no more than a year or two difference in age. Without seeing the two side by side I couldn’t even tell which child is older.

 

[St_Francis]

Why are you referring me to the CCC? I know what it says, I live it and I would never support a law that gives self-defense* priority* over the simple ability to walk down the street and continue breathing. All life is precious and to be defended - beginning with the most vulnerable, as in: unarmed kid with candy and a drink gets a little more consideration than macho dolt with a gun and nothing to shoot it at.

Also, please try not to confuse the issue. No one has been discussing home invasion that I’m aware of. This is about the duty to retreat, when retreat is an option. It’s not about duty to retreat when someone is pummeling the life out of you; that would be self defense, pure and simple assuming of course, you did not provoke said pummeling.

I was responding to your critique of the SYG law, not to this particular case. SYG does not allow people to go around shooting people willy-nilly; it allows people who have defended themselves to be free from spending tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against prosecution.

There is a complete and total difference between defending oneself and killing someone who is simply walking down the street. What we do not know is whether Martin *was *simply walking down the street. One description of the event (it seems not to be Zimmerman’s, but put forth by his father?) has Martin coming up from behind Zimmerman, punching him in the nose, knocking him down, and pounding his head against the sidewalk. *If that description is true, *then Martin was not simply walking down the street; he attacked Zimmerman.

However, it seems that what Martin’s girlfriend says contradicts that version, that the two met face-to-face. In which case, who hit who first would end up being the determining factor of Zimmerman’s guilt.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You don’t see it as cold. I see it as COLD. Allowable difference of opinions. Not sure what procedure is in such cases.

Of course. And, you are relentless in sharing your opinions. It was COLD and Martin was a child rather than a minor.

Yes, that was a bit of chain-yanking. I couldn’t help myself.

 

[seekerz]

I was responding to your critique of the SYG law, not to this particular case. SYG does not allow people to go around shooting people willy-nilly; it allows people who have defended themselves to be free from spending tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against prosecution.

There is a complete and total difference between defending oneself and killing someone who is simply walking down the street. What we do not know is whether Martin *was *simply walking down the street. One description of the event (it seems not to be Zimmerman’s, but put forth by his father?) has Martin coming up from behind Zimmerman, punching him in the nose, knocking him down, and pounding his head against the sidewalk. *If that description is true, *then Martin was not simply walking down the street; he attacked Zimmerman.

However, it seems that what Martin’s girlfriend says contradicts that version, that the two met face-to-face. In which case, who hit who first would end up being the determining factor of Zimmerman’s guilt.

Why go with ‘he said’, ‘she said’ at this point? According to Zimmerman’s only words heard publicly to date, Trayvon was*** walking down the street*** and looked suspicious to him. Anything that happened subsequently is up for debate.

 

[seekerz]

Of course. And, you are relentless in sharing your opinions. It was COLD and Martin was a child rather than a minor.

Yes, that was a bit of chain-yanking. I couldn’t help myself.

Is there a difference between a minor and a child, pray tell?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Is there a difference between a minor and a child, pray tell?

There is in my mind. My 9-year old is a child. My 14-year old is a minor, though he looks like a man-child. My 16-year old is a minor, though when she got her passport, she was viewed as an adult and I view her as a young woman, rather than a child. Legally, I suppose they are all children. But, it would be very odd for me to keep calling my daughter a child, the child, when she is a young woman.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Because members cannot refrain from insulting each other and cannot discuss this topic charitably, I am closing this thread and issuing a temporary ban on this topic in this form.