Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawnia said:
It depends on how the law is worded.
Click to expand...
It also matters how it is applied. Zimmerman’s defense does not hinge on the application of the law. At best, those who are complaining about the law are suggesting that it somehow contributed to his choices but even there the evidence is weak because 911 told him not to follow Martin. The only people who think the law applied are those who hate the law.

Rather, it would seem that those dancing in Martin’s blood are simply trying not to let a good crisis go to waste.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is absolutely correct but I think to emphasize your last (unnumbered) point: What the lynch mob seems to forget is that to convict someone of a crime in this country requires evidence of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. **Common error: It should state “evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt.” ** The police and DA are not simply guessing about what might have happened, as some theorize, but whether they are likely to gain a successful conviction based on the evidence. Lacking the evidence to convict they will rightly choose not to indict.

That’s the way the law works but, of course, that’s not the way the mob works.
Click to expand...
 
Calgar said:
You’re right. It hinges on the witnesses and the evidence which all point to Zommerman’s innocence. Don’t mention that in public right now, though.

myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
Click to expand...
Yep, that article, or one like it, has been posted in this thread a few times but you won’t hear it much discussed because it doesn’t fit with the mob’s narratives. This is supposed to be about, choose:

*) The injustice of being black.

*) The injustice of “stand your ground” law.

*) The injustice of guns.

It’s not supposed to be about a kid who attacked the wrong guy at the wrong time.
 
IAGladfelter said:
Don’t you agree that a “stand your ground law” / “shoot first law” / “wild west law” as it was called by some when being considered by the Florida legislature sets things up for vigilantes and makes tragedies like this inevitable?
Click to expand...
No I don’t. Bad people do bad things and have zero regard for the law. Look at the amount incarcerated in the USA? Apparently the law wasn’t high on their list of priorites.

Let me clarify for you. If you walk in my shop with a hood on and your hand in your pockets? My hand will be on my semi-automatic. And yes, costumes on Halloween are out.

And if I walked in your shop or anyones with a hood on and my hands in my pocket? I would “expect” you to be concerned for your life, first always.🤷 Now if you see this different, than all I can say is perhaps our lives experience has taken us in different directions. I trust my instinct to survive first, always. And you race makes “zero” difference to me, death is color blind.

Thats not to say this kid wasn’t “stalked” by some delusional nut as I stated earlier. But stalking isn’t part of that law. Hunting hoodies I doubt was the intent either. I doubt that carrying a concealed firearm and looking for crime was part of the equation either.

In fact why would anyone walk around Florida in the daytime with a hoodie on? Its been one of hottest winters they’ve had in years in FLA. If I walked around with swastikas tattoo’d all over and a bald head what would you think? I worked for the NCAAP?

And lets just be clear about racism, its a TWO-WAY street of ignorance. The ratio in America means exactly what?

Just Sayin 🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
No I don’t. Bad people do bad things and have zero regard for the law. Look at the amount incarcerated in the USA? Apparently the law wasn’t high on their list of priorites.

Let me clarify for you. If you walk in my shop with a hood on and your hand in your pockets? My hand will be on my semi-automatic. And yes, costumes on Halloween are out.

And if I walked in your shop or anyones with a hood on and my hands in my pocket? I would “expect” you to be concerned for your life, first always.🤷 Now if you see this different, than all I can say is perhaps our lives experience has taken us in different directions. I trust my instinct to survive first, always. And you race makes “zero” difference to me, death is color blind.

Thats not to say this kid wasn’t “stalked” by some delusional nut as I stated earlier. But stalking isn’t part of that law. Hunting hoodies I doubt was the intent either. I doubt that carrying a concealed firearm and looking for crime was part of the equation either.

In fact why would anyone walk around Florida in the daytime with a hoodie on? If it matters, it was evening and it was raining. Its been one of hottest winters they’ve had in years in FLA. If I walked around with swastikas tattoo’d all over and a bald head what would you think? I worked for the NCAAP?

And lets just be clear about racism, its a TWO-WAY street of ignorance. The ratio in America means exactly what?

Just Sayin 🤷
Click to expand...
 
mlund said:
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.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree with this. What Mr. Zimmerman said has no bearing on the danger he posed, which I think would be obvious. If one is accosted by an armed gunman, there is no amount of force that is excessive as long as that person remains armed. Only if Mr. Zimmerman were to disarm himself, would it be necessary for a trained officer to reduce the force. Citizens are not held to even this standard.

No, first blow is not always necessary for guilt. If an armed man accosts you, again using this scenario, one does not have to wait until he pulls the trigger to respond.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
It also matters how it is applied. Zimmerman’s defense does not hinge on the application of the law. At best, those who are complaining about the law are suggesting that it somehow contributed to his choices but even there the evidence is weak because 911 told him not to follow Martin. The only people who think the law applied are those who hate the law.

Rather, it would seem that those dancing in Martin’s blood are simply trying not to let a good crisis go to waste.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of prevention. But, I agree, application does matter. Unfortunately, the application of law happens after someone is already shot.
 
pnewton said:
I totally disagree with this. What Mr. Zimmerman said has no bearing on the danger he posed, which I think would be obvious. If one is accosted by an armed gunman, there is no amount of force that is excessive as long as that person remains armed. Only if Mr. Zimmerman were to disarm himself, would it be necessary for a trained officer to reduce the force. Citizens are not held to even this standard.

No, first blow is not always necessary for guilt. If an armed man accosts you, again using this scenario, one does not have to wait until he pulls the trigger to respond.
Click to expand...
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.

There is also no evidence that Zimmerman had drawn his weapon before Martin’s attack began. My guess, based on what has been reported, is that Zimmerman drew and fired his weapon from the ground as he was being beaten unbeknownst to Martin.

Mlundy’s point is correct but academic.
 
Dawnia said:
I was thinking more along the lines of prevention. But, I agree, application does matter. Unfortunately, the application of law happens after someone is already shot.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s what I had inferred, but if Zimmerman would not be prevented by 911 telling him not to follow, why would any change in law have prevented this situation?

As importantly, it is necessary to consider the other side of the coin. Why was the law enacted in the first place? My own opinion is that people in a threatening situation should look for an opportunity to escape before choosing to fight. But I think the purpose of the law was to discourage second-guessing the choice of victims.

I’m just not sure why people think this tragedy is a useful guide to evaluating the law.
 
Not really, the guy no-doubt should be in prison. No doubt.

And I wear hoodies up here all winter casual.

I think its an attrocity. But I don’t think the law is wrong, the police should definately have arrested the fool immediately.

Yet we must understand, wearing hoodies and running around with your hands in your pocket presents a image which is widely known in the inner-city today. My son and his friends on the high school basketball team all run around together like this. They went to Harlem Tues night to see a rap show. 🤷

But theres a point with rational thinking where projecting this image will present an issue. But hey these kids all know exactly how I feel about it. Projecting a gangter image is a problem. I walk around with a hoodie and do not do that? I pray they all don’t get stupid when they do go out. But hey they listen to me on the basketball court, and about Christ, so I suspect they have enough respect to think about all I tell them. 🤷
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is absolutely correct but I think to emphasize your last (unnumbered) point: What the lynch mob seems to forget is that to convict someone of a crime in this country requires evidence of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. --ERROR –

The police and DA are not simply guessing about what might have happened, as some theorize, but whether they are likely to gain a successful conviction based on the evidence. Lacking the evidence to convict they will rightly choose not to indict.

**This would rest on the assumption that full and unbiased investigation took place.
Since both Sanford authorities have “stepped aside,” one must wonder about
the actual nature of their "investigation.

This too is a part of “the LAW” in investigating possible crime.**

That’s the way the law works but, of course, that’s not the way the mob works.
Click to expand...
 
GaryTaylor said:
Not really, the guy no-doubt should be in prison. No doubt.

And I wear hoodies up here all winter casual.

I think its an attrocity. But I don’t think the law is wrong, the police should definately have arrested the fool immediately.

Yet we must understand, wearing hoodies and running around with your hands in your pocket presents a image which is widely known in the inner-city today. My son and his friends on the high school basketball team all run around together like this. They went to Harlem Tues night to see a rap show. 🤷

But theres a point with rational thinking where projecting this image will present an issue. But hey these kids all know exactly how I feel about it. Projecting a gangter image is a problem. I walk around with a hoodie and do not do that? I pray they all don’t get stupid when they do go out. But hey they listen to me on the basketball court, and about Christ, so I suspect they have enough respect to think about all I tell them. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’ll pray that prayer right along with you.
 
catharina said:
This would rest on the assumption that full and unbiased investigation took place. Since both Sanford authorities have “stepped aside,” one must wonder about the actual nature of their "investigation. This too is a part of “the LAW” in investigating possible crime.
Click to expand...
One can always invent bias explanations in any investigation. But the fact remains that the proper athorities examined the evidence and made what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision not to prosecute for all the reasons previously cited. It is not sufficient to invent theories as to how Martin may have been an innocent victim or the authorities biased against him. In a court of law one needs to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stepping aside and giving the mob a reinvestigation of the evidence seems like a perfectly prudent choice on the part of the authorities to me, not a vindication of the mob’s wild theories.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
One can always invent bias explanations in any investigation. But the fact remains that the proper athorities examined the evidence and made what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision not to prosecute for all the reasons previously cited. It is not sufficient to invent theories as to how Martin may have been an innocent victim or the authorities biased against him. In a court of law one needs to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stepping aside and giving the mob a reinvestigation of the evidence seems like a perfectly prudent choice on the part of the authorities to me, not a vindication of the mob’s wild theories.
Click to expand...
Yet BOTH authorities stepped aside.
Very good move - since a child was killed.
 
catharina said:
I’ll pray that prayer right along with you.
Click to expand...
Thank You

Yes, bad Police Stations with racial issues, well there’s two under review in CT today for outright racial profiling New-London and East Haven. So I have no doubt the south has its share.

I’m just trying to see this for what it is, not what the media wants us to see. 👍

Peace
 
catharina said:
Yet BOTH authorities stepped aside.
Very good move - since a child was killed.
Click to expand...
So everytime a “child” is killed you believe a state and federal investiation is required?

I doubt it.

But let’s give the mob their due. They are good at politicizing tragedies.
 
State for sure. These are teenage kids. And if it gets to the point where that also seems to be an issue? Then yes the feds should step in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top