Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[catharina]

Also, no one wants to listen to the guy who shot him. The kid jumped him, gave him a broken nose and was bashing his head onto the sidewalk, and apparently there is a witness to this. So then, the guy shot him. The kid obviously knew the guy was watching him, and this ticked him off, but wasn’t that Zimmerman’s job as a neighborhood watchman?

The kid in question wasn’t doing anything wrong before he jumped the guy, but that decision cost his life. How much different would it have been if the kid asked him why he was following him, rather than if he had a “problem”. What if he told him that he was visiting his father and went to the store to get a snack and told him which house his father lived in? All of this could have been resolved peacefully, if Zimmerman asked questions and the boy kept his cool.

The boy’s mother has applied to have his name trademarked. I have no idea if she wants to make a buck or do something constructive with the money she will make, but I hope it is the latter. What that would be, I do not know. When I read that, my heart fell. ** that is the last thing that would be on my mind to do less than a week from my kid’s death**; but who knows, probably she has someone advising her to do it.

The child was killed on February 26, 2012.
(Perhaps you use a different calendar?)
That is one month ago today.

How much different would this have played out if Zimmerman adhered to 911’s advice?
‘Hey Georgie, stay back. You ain’t the police, man.’

 

[mlund]

Incorrect go back and read the links I posted. This is figment of your imagination, of what you THINK self defense is. Which has to be proven in court

“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.” - Florida State Law Title 46 - 776.013

That’s the applicable law’s definition of self-defense. Your fictional definition of self-defense is not relevant to the legal case against Mr. Zimmerman.

Even if Mr. Zimmerman lived in a state with a Duty of Retreat there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm until Mr. Martin had already decked him and pinned him to the ground - at which point retreat was not reasonably possible.

Treyvon Martin was in reasonable fear, could he had shot and killed this man? Of couse not this wild west understanding you have is lacking.

Yes, actually he could have shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman if he had reasonable fear. The “reasonable person standard,” however, is a function of the law - not the individual’s opinion of what is “reasonable.”

I’m sure Mr. Martin thought it was entirely reasonable to circle back, confront Mr. Zimmerman, deck him, jump on him, and smash his skull on the concrete multiple times. Mr. Martin was wrong.

• Marty Lund

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again.

If an armed mugger attacks someone on the street, and that person fights back, is the mugger justified in shooting him?

Because from Trayvon’s point of view, Zimmerman was the predator.

Well being your in the Commonwealth of Mass where gun laws and concealed weapons are critical. So tell me, in your senerio what would happen in Mass?

 

[johnnyjones]

You read my post wrong.

You said

You received the reply

Case in point.

As in, that poster made your point. People that know nothing about Zimmerman, but have tried, convicted and sentenced him.

Sorry about that.

 

[catharina]

“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.” - Florida State Law Title 46 - 776.013

That’s the applicable law’s definition of self-defense. Your fictional definition of self-defense is not relevant to the legal case against Mr. Zimmerman.

Even if Mr. Zimmerman lived in a state with a Duty of Retreat there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm until Mr. Martin had already decked him and pinned him to the ground - at which point retreat was not reasonably possible.

**Yes, actually he could have shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman if he had reasonable fear. **The “reasonable person standard,” however, is a function of the law - not the individual’s opinion of what is “reasonable.”

I’m sure Mr. Martin thought it was entirely reasonable to circle back, confront Mr. Zimmerman, deck him, jump on him, and smash his skull on the concrete multiple times. Mr. Martin was wrong.

• Marty Lund

… and a GUN.

 

[johnnyjones]

… and a GUN.

Repeating the law over and over doesn’t make your “case”. There used to be an old saying, “were you there charlie?”

 

[GaryTaylor]

“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.” - Florida State Law Title 46 - 776.013

That’s the applicable law’s definition of self-defense. Your fictional definition of self-defense is not relevant to the legal case against Mr. Zimmerman.

Even if Mr. Zimmerman lived in a state with a Duty of Retreat there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm until Mr. Martin had already decked him and pinned him to the ground - at which point retreat was not reasonably possible.

Yes, actually he could have shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman if he had reasonable fear. The “reasonable person standard,” however, is a function of the law - not the individual’s opinion of what is “reasonable.”

I’m sure Mr. Martin thought it was entirely reasonable to circle back, confront Mr. Zimmerman, deck him, jump on him, and smash his skull on the concrete multiple times. Mr. Martin was wrong.

• Marty Lund

And Mr Zimmerman was ingaged in a illegal activity:shrug: Its called stalking here.

And this is decided in court where Mr Zimmerman should be under arrest at this moment. And as I stated the laws vary state to state as the link I posted stated.

You’ll have to post ALL the Fla law in regard to this including the “provisions”. Which btw Mr Zimmerman doesn’t fall into by Fla law, so they say.

And btw 75% of America agree’s

So your fictional senerio is moot.

 

[mlund]

If an armed mugger attacks someone on the street, and that person fights back, is the mugger justified in shooting him?

Because from Trayvon’s point of view, Zimmerman was the predator.

The available evidence in the case does not support that conclusion being reasonable. According to the only record of the event available:

Mr. Martin got away from Mr. Zimmerman. Instead of returning home he came back around and confronted Mr. Zimmerman asking “What’s your problem?” When Mr. Zimmerman responded in the negative Mr. Martin said something to the effect of “Well you’ve got one now,” and decked him (assault). Then he got on top of him and started bashing his head against concrete while Mr. Zimmerman yelled for help (aggravated assault).

A person in reasonable fear does not circle back, initiate a verbal altercation, and then start throwing punches and bashing people’s heads against concrete.

Mr. Martin is dead, so you and I will never know if Mr. Martin saw Mr. Zimmerman as a physical threat to himself (that for some reason he needed to return to confront rather than return home) or some sort of “snitch” who was profiling him and calling the cops on him and needed to be “taught a lesson” as it were.

• Marty Lund

 

[oldcelt]

How much different would this have played out if Zimmerman adhered to 911’s advice?
‘Hey Georgie, stay back. You ain’t the police, man.’

And that is what this case boils down to…unreasonable pursuit, by someone who is not an official of the law. Had this happened in Zimmerman’s home, completely justifiable…but it didn’t.
Personally, if someone was following me like that, I’d try to get the “drop” on him too.

John

 

[catharina]

And Mr Zimmerman was ingaged in a illegal activity:shrug: **Its called stalking here. **
And this is decided in court where Mr Zimmerman should be under arrest at this moment. And as I stated they laws vary state to state as the link I posted stated.

You’ll have to post ALL the Fla law in regard to this including the “provisions”. Which btw Mr Zimmerman doesn’t fall into by Fla law, so they say.

And btw 75% of America agree’s

So your fictional scenario is moot.

It’s called STALKING in most jurisdictions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The available evidence in the case does not support that conclusion being reasonable. According to the only record of the event available:

Mr. Martin got away from Mr. Zimmerman. Instead of returning home he came back around and confronted Mr. Zimmerman asking “What’s your problem?” When Mr. Zimmerman responded in the negative Mr. Martin said something to the effect of “Well you’ve got one now,” and decked him (assault). Then he got on top of him and started bashing his head against concrete while Mr. Zimmerman yelled for help (aggravated assault).

A person in reasonable fear does not circle back, initiate a verbal altercation, and then start throwing punches and bashing people’s heads against concrete.

Mr. Martin is dead, so you and I will never know if Mr. Martin saw Mr. Zimmerman as a physical threat to himself (that for some reason he needed to return to confront rather than return home) or some sort of “snitch” who was profiling him and calling the cops on him and needed to be “taught a lesson” as it were.

• Marty Lund

How do you know what a person if fear does? More bias foolishness. They do ANYTHING to survive.

 

[catharina]

**And that is what this case boils down to…unreasonable pursuit, by someone who is not an official of the law. **Had this happened in Zimmerman’s home, completely justifiable…but it didn’t.
Personally, if someone was following me like that, I’d try to get the “drop” on him too.

John

Agree.

 

[catharina]

Repeating the law over and over doesn’t make your “case”. There used to be an old saying, “were you there charlie?”

Zimmerman was there.
He said HE had a gun,
and that the child didn’t have one.

 

[mlund]

And Mr Zimmerman was ingaged in a illegal activity:shrug: Its called stalking here.

It’s called STALKING in most jurisdictions.

That’s nowhere even close to the legal definition of stalking in Florida, or most jurisdictions. Credibility = 0.

For one thing, the definition of stalking requires repeated and malicious incidents of following and/or harassing the individual victim and making credible threats.

And this is decided in court where Mr Zimmerman should be under arrest at this moment. And as I stated they laws vary state to state as the link I posted stated.

Nope. It is an affirmative defense. The police and prosecution are legally obligated to produce a body of evidence to the contrary sufficient to press charges with in court. Currently they don’t have one.

It’s a good thing our legal system is based on rule of law and not ignorant emotional outbursts like we see in the media.

• Marty Lund

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I know he follwed the boy in his SUV - despite 911’s advice to refrain from doing so.
He followed the boy until he got out of the vehicle to ENCOUNTER him. He killed him.

No following, no encounter, no killing.
So simple.

Zimmerman’s actions? Inexplicable to me.

The key phrase to this whole line of inquiry.

 

[Dawnia]

And that is what this case boils down to…unreasonable pursuit, by someone who is not an official of the law. Had this happened in Zimmerman’s home, completely justifiable…but it didn’t.
Personally, if someone was following me like that, I’d try to get the “drop” on him too.

John

Really? You’re going to attack someone with a gun if you’re unarmed?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s nowhere even close to the legal definition of stalking in Florida

Nope. It is an affirmative defense. The police and prosecution are legally obligated to produce a body of evidence to the contrary sufficient to press charges with in court. Currently they don’t have one.

It’s a good thing our legal system is based on rule of law and not ignorant emotional outbursts like we see in the media.

• Marty Lund

Really and where are all those legal provisions from FLA? This is YOUR OPINION.

Well when you post ALL the Fla General Law Statures in regard with the provisions we can discuss this. Untill then cherry picking what you you think is relevant does zip for me.

The legal system went South as we see with those who resigned. I wouldn’t send that issue up the flagpole. Its an attrocity there in that county. Its that not self evident it is to the rest of the world.

 

[oldcelt]

Really? You’re going to attack someone with a gun if you’re unarmed?

Probably not, unless I felt it was my only hope of survival.

John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Really? You’re going to attack someone with a gun if you’re unarmed?

Your assuming he had a firearm out and telling a man to HALT. Only a fool would not stop. Or possibly someone with a death wish.

He had a concealed weapon, and a record to boot. Which means he should not have had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Dawnia]

It’s called STALKING in most jurisdictions.

That is a HUGE stretch. Stalking requires repeated offenses. This was a one time event.