Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintPatrick333 said:
This is not intended to sound as racist as it does but the fact of the matter is if zimmerman were black this would NOT have the outcry it does. It’d just have jesse jackson shaking his head. But since it was a white man who killed a black youth, jesse’s out for blood. Zimmerman’s self defense plea will fall through since they have him on tape saying he was following Mr. Martin. Once the police told him to stop, and he continued doing so, then it became murder. Even if Mr. Martin attacked him in that scuffle the lead to the tragic shooting, it would not absolve Mr. Zimmerman of guilt. He was out for blood and he found it. But now Mr. Jackson (and presumably Al Sharpton at some point) are out rallying angry african americans everywhere to cast out this white devil. Personally I find that the most upsetting, that rainbow push coalition is taking advantage of the death of a young man for publicity and to push its own agenda. Why are they not on tv daily condemning the black on black killings in chicago that happen in the dozens every single night? Why stay relatively silent until a white man is the shooter and THEN stir up the rallies for justice? Mr. Martin did not deserve what he got, Mr. Zimmerman deserves life without parole. God will sort it all out in the end. No point dragging anyone else into it. Leave it to the courts and to God.
Click to expand...
Right, I agree.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Homicide is not always a crime. The police only arrest when they have reson to believe that a crime was committed.

All states have self-defense. Even Europe still has self defense. The definitions and criteria vary.

No new evidence has come to light which would suggest that the police or DA made the wrong decision. If new evidence were to come to light that suggested Zimmerma commted a crime then the police could still make an arrest.
Click to expand...
Your wrong once again.🤷 CT has NO SELF DEFENSE.
 
Lujack said:
I think it is in some ways ironic that Zimmerman’s defenders urge us to be patient, leave things to the professionals, let them handle it…had Mr. Zimmerman taken their advice on the night that he shot Trayvon Martin dead, had he listened to the advice of the 911 dispatchers and left things to the police instead of trying to be a vigilante…Trayvon Martin would have arrived at his girlfriend’s father’s house safe and sound.
Instead a boy is dead.
Click to expand...
The choice is yours: rule or mob or rule of law.

Even those who defend Zimmerman believe that he made a grave error in following Martin. But that is not the issue here and no amount of mob agitation will make it so.

If, as the evidnce suggests, Martin turned on Zimmerman and attacked him, then Martin is resposible for his own death.
 
GaryTaylor said:
And that would have to be proved after the arrest in court? There is NOT a self -defense law in CT. You can prove deadlly force resulted in choice in court. Nor is this the sitruation in Fla.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know what you are babling about now. I just pointed you to the CT law. The FL law will be roughly the same with perhaps broader application.

It is absolutley not the case that self defense is determined only in a court of law. As I noted before, the police and DA have discretion not to arrest or prosecute if they believe that no crime has been committed. That is just how the legal system works in general, nothing speicifc to homicide or self defense.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I really don’t know what you are babling about now. I just pointed you to the CT law. The FL law will be roughly the same with perhaps broader application.

It is absolutley not the case that self defense is determined only in a court of law. As I noted before, the police and DA have discretion not to arrest or prosecute if they believe that no crime has been committed.
Click to expand...
You didn’t show me anything about CT I know how it works here I live here and seen it in court. So the babbling would be you.

As to Fla there are the circumstances I already mentioned. 🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
You didn’t show me anything about CT I know how it works here I live here and seen it in court. So the babbling would be you.
Click to expand...
You claimed that there as no self defense in CT. I gave you a link to the CT law that says otherwise. I have no idea what you may have seen in court to the contrary but one thing you will never see in court: those cases where the police and DA chose not to arrest and prosecute because it was obviously self defense.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Here you can view, here.

Now if you prove the force was justified you go home not-guilty. Thats “if” this particular case happened here.
Click to expand...
That looks like the same page I cited. It defines self defense in CT.

So we know, first of all, that your original claim that there is no self defense in CT is false.

What this page does not describe either way is whether every death in CT results in an arrest and prosecution of someone, as you are now claiming. But that is not how the law works in general and there is no reason to suppose that is done even in CT. In general, cases are only brought to trial when the DA has reason to belive he can prevail and arrests are only made when the police suspect a crime has been committed.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
That looks like the same page I cited. It defines self defense in CT.

So we know, first of all, that your original claim that there is no self defense in CT is false.

What this page does not describe either way is whether every death in CT results in an arrest and prosecution of someone, as you are now claiming. But that is not how the law works in general and there is no reason to suppose that is done even in CT. In general, cases are only brought to trial when the DA has reason to belive he can prevail and arrests are only made when the police suspect a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...
No its correct, your getting arrested. There is no provision for a crime as this where you don’t and “Self Defense” applies. 🤷
 
Here the section you quoted. Hows it apply?

Sec. 53a-18. Use of reasonable physical force or deadly physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal

“under any of the following circumstances”

(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person, except a person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor for school purposes as described in subdivision (6) of this section, may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such minor or incompetent person.
(2) An authorized official of a correctional institution or facility may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use such physical force as is reasonable and authorized by the rules and regulations of the Department of Correction.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use reasonable physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use reasonable physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to thwart such result.
(5) A duly licensed physician or psychologist, or a person acting under his direction, may use reasonable physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient, provided the treatment
(A) is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision, or
(B) is administered in an emergency when the physician or psychologist reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
(6) A teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor for school purposes may use reasonable physical force upon such minor when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
(A) protect himself or others from immediate physical injury,
(B) obtain possession of a dangerous instrument or controlled substance, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 21a-240, upon or within the control of such minor,
(C) protect property from physical damage or
(D) restrain such minor or remove such minor to another area, to maintain order.
 
havana1 said:
By “we,” do you mean law enforcement or people in general? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t want to live in a Wild West society where vigilante wannabe Billy The Kid types around playing cops and robbers at the expense of public safety. Any word on whether this vigilante even had a CCW permit for his firearm or if he did “neighborhood watch” with the cooperation of any local law enforcement agencies?
Click to expand...
By we, I mean us Catholics.😉 As for the “wild west” where wannabe Billy the Kid types play cops. Playing cop was the last thing on William Bonney’s mind.:rolleyes:

But getting back to reality. The present trend is to lay off Police officers and leave the citizens to fend for themselves. CCW permits and common sense legislation like “Castle Doctrine”, and “Stand Your Ground” make this situation tenable. You don’t have the stomach for it? Get out then.

ATB
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
The choice is yours: rule or mob or rule of law.

Even those who defend Zimmerman believe that he made a grave error in following Martin. But that is not the issue here and no amount of mob agitation will make it so.

If, as the evidnce suggests, Martin turned on Zimmerman and attacked him, then Martin is resposible for his own death.
Click to expand...
No, under Florida’s law if Martin felt that Zimmerman was about to unlawfully attack him, he was legally entitled to defend himself.

And your bizarre interpretation of “rule of law” seems to boil down to “the police are always right” and “there should never be any public outcry”. Especially since the public outcry is not “Hang Zimmerman from the nearest tree” (fringe groups notwithstanding) but calling for his (legal) arrest and conviction.
 
mlund said:
Local sources behind selectively reporting national narratives

Points of fact: It was not illegal for Mr. Zimmerman to carry a gun. It was not illegal for Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. It was not illegal for them to exchange words. It does not matter whether Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin, snapped his neck, or brained him with a rock - lethal force is lethal force.

1.)It was probably illegal for one or the other to initiate violence against one another.

2.) It was also probably illegal for Mr. Martin to continue to beat Mr. Zimmerman after he was down not the ground screaming for help (excessive force), even if Mr. Zimmerman instigated the violence.

3.) The extent to which self-defense allows for legal protection depends on who initiated the violence.

If Mr. Martin knocked Mr. Zimmerman down with a blow from behind, climbed on him, and started beating his face against the concrete while he cried for help then Mr. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense holds up and there’s no case against him. Until real evidence shows up to the contrary you can’t charge him, let alone punish him.

All the rhetoric about race, children, vigilantism, gun laws, etc. is just foolishness, ax-grinding, and opportunism distracting from the actual process of justice.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
This.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Here the section you quoted. Hows it apply?

Sec. 53a-18. Use of reasonable physical force or deadly physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal

“under any of the following circumstances”
Click to expand...
This is the relevant portion. The rest simpy defines those cases where self defense applies and a death (homicide) is not a crime.
GaryTaylor said:
No its correct, your getting arrested. There is no provision for a crime as this where you don’t and “Self Defense” applies.
Click to expand...
As a general rule, the police don’t arrest where there no crime.

I’m done with this. If you don’t get it by now you never will.
 
Lujack said:
No, under Florida’s law if Martin felt that Zimmerman was about to unlawfully attack him, he was legally entitled to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Now all you need to do is find some evidence to support this theory.
And your bizarre interpretation of “rule of law” seems to boil down to “the police are always right” and “there should never be any public outcry”. Especially since the public outcry is not “Hang Zimmerman from the nearest tree” (fringe groups notwithstanding) but calling for his (legal) arrest and conviction.
Click to expand...
If by “public outcry” you mean a lynch mob, yeah, I would prefer to rule of law to that.

Now, as I said before, if there is some new evidence then that might well justify a reexamination of the case and perhaps an arrest and prosecution. Making up theories does not constitute new evidence nor does the agitation of the mob or the grandstanding of mob agitators with political agendas.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
The problem with this argument is that if Martin thought Zimmerman was armed he would have been struggling for the gun, not beating him in the head. It seems more likely that he didn’t know Zimmerman was armed.
Click to expand...
Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn’t. Dead men tell no tales. But Zimmerman was armed. That we know. Thus, the force used by Martin was still in self-defense.

In a fight, it is hard to know exactly when to let up. It is possible also that Martin let off and received a bullet for his mercy.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I don’t judge them so harshly. Who wants to be the target of a mob?

I think we have to come to terms with the fact that some victims are more equal than others.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I do not doubt this crime is getting more than its due attention. I also do not doubt that there is at least probable cause for an arrest, which would allow a jury to decide the case and allow time to cool emotions. There is no need for delay. Self-defense is a defense. Just in light of the facts that are not indispute, that are knowable from the tapes, anywhere else, this would already be in the courts. The irony is, I think this would give Zimmerman a more fair trial. As this situation heats up, the politcial law enforcement of the state and the federal government will see to a conviction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top