Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Amen, theres a lot of possible senerios. They utilize the Grand Jury there I believe often as in NY. Should have been detained, jeez did they take the gun permit from the guy

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just can’t help but feel if this had been a police officer, he would be walking away because the community realizes that officers put their life on the line and sometimes make bad judgment calls.

Zimmerman did not have that kind of protection in a" neighborhood watch" situation. He may have feared for his life after 46 calls to the police and felt it necessary and urged others to carry guns to protect themselves but he had no such protection. The gated community would not protect nor the police he kept calling and to stick his own neck out, many would consider him a “fool”.

I don’t know but IMHO a police officer would have stopped the kid way earlier.

Right he doesn’t have this protection in this situation and he shouldn’t

As to what happened to Zimmerman in life? They can consider it in court.

 

[gam197]

I think this “stand your groud law” was put in place to protect. I know in the northeast, the law was that you had to try to leave your home if someone broke into your home or you could be prosecuted. You also had to wait until they were in your home until you could take action with a firearm so the laws were very confusing.

I remember an afro-american friend told me that when he was 12, he heard a robber breaking in and went to his dad and his dad told him to get back under the covers and just stay very quiet and that is what he did.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What you are missing, Gary, is that a claim of self-defence is an affirmative defence. In other words, by claiming self-defence a person is admitting to actions that would normally constitute assault or homicide. The burden of proof is then on them to show that their actions were justified.

All legal systems in the world, let alone the US, have a provision for self-defence.

It seems that you are unfamiliar with what the term means. Please educate yourself.

Well thanks and what you are missing, is that stature means your going to Court, which is my point here. Unless you meet the provisions sighted. You go home IF you fall into one of the provisions I stated. So self defense is a very slippery slope here. And you better be 100% correct. It varys state by state.

And no I have desire to educate myself in law, I have an education Thank You. But I have seen hundreds of case’s here, where guys used self-defense and wound up in prison for murder, manslaughter, and neg. homicide.

But thanks for your insight:thumbsup:

And see where you say this…“a provision for self-defence” none of this applies here being my point which relates to the Shoot First Law.

But thanks for you imput!

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by GaryTaylor**
I don’t know but IMHO a police officer would have stopped the kid way earlier.

We have all seen police officers make some bad judgment calls- sometimes deadly but the officers defend each other and so does the public because the public is aware of how often they put their life on the line.

Zimmerman or anyone in a “neighborhood watch” does not have any protection and they should realize that. Lack of training but even in the groups that do train their volunteers, they are still not policemen and should not act as such.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think this “stand your groud law” was put in place to protect. I know in the northeast, the law was that you had to try to leave your home if someone broke into your home or you could be prosecuted. You also had to wait until they were in your home until you could take action with a firearm so the laws were very confusing.

I remember an afro-american friend told me that when he was 12, he heard a robber breaking in and went to his dad and his dad told him to get back under the covers and just stay very quiet and that is what he did.

CT is the most insane state I’ve seen with the applied law. Protecting your home or business as I said is a great case. But even here with that, the question comes into play of unjust force.

Listen I have a childhood friend whos sisters boyfriend walked in the house in rage with a knife accusing her of cheating etc. My friend grabbed a bat and was cut a few times in the struggle. He spend 18-mths in jail for a manslaughter charge before a jury found him innocent.

I have another friend from the service a fellow walked up behind to rob with a knife, the Marine killed the man with his hands. He’s in prison today doing 8-years. Unjust force reduced to manslaughter.

Depends which state you are in and the provisions. There’s no committing homicides and going home here. Unless it one of the provisions I showed or a man commits a crime by trying to rob you in your home or business, and if your smart you’ll have 911 on the line “if” you have no choice to hurt him.

And even then, I wouldn’t kill him unless I had No-Choice. But hey thats me. In fact I had a man walk in my hotel room here at 3-am with no-weapon. I had a firearm. I questioned him and let him go. He was a hustler a bum who had an extra key-card. I certainly wasn’t going to ruin my night by shooting him. Jeez, I could see the mess now. Wife in therapy for years, blood everywhere…Nice Vacation hey?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well I am just so glad that the Judge Roy Beans have it figured out for all of us ignorant folk. Lets just get a rope and bring Zimmerman to the closest tree and string him up. I mean, why do we need a legal system when we have the brightest legal minds in the country right here who can deduce guilt or innocence just by what they read in the paper and see on the TV?

 

[pnewton]

Lets just get a rope and bring Zimmerman to the closest tree and string him up.

Are you trying to collect on that Black Panther bounty?

First, I do not think anyone has said he is guilty or wants him punished without trial. This is a strawman. Second, much of the evidence is available in the form of Zimmerman’s recording. It is not necessary to rely on news reports for that which one can hear from the mouth of the man in question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We have all seen police officers make some bad judgment calls- sometimes deadly but the officers defend each other and so does the public because the public is aware of how often they put their life on the line.

Zimmerman or anyone in a “neighborhood watch” does not have any protection and they should realize that. Lack of training but even in the groups that do train their volunteers, they are still not policemen and should not act as such.

Right, my thoughts exactly. Between us and everything we do is the consequence, we all as responsible adults should know this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I am just so glad that the Judge Roy Beans have it figured out for all of us ignorant folk. Lets just get a rope and bring Zimmerman to the closest tree and string him up. I mean, why do we need a legal system when we have the brightest legal minds in the country right here who can deduce guilt or innocence just by what they read in the paper and see on the TV?

No clue, sounds like a good county in Fla to avoid to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, I do not think anyone has said he is guilty or wants him punished without trial. This is a strawman. Second, much of the evidence is available in the form of Zimmerman’s recording. It is not necessary to rely on news reports for that which one can hear from the mouth of the man in question.

Amen, And after all the clamour this is precisely where we are. The media obviously is along for the ride, and the usual publicity hounds etc. 3-Ring Circus.

 

[SamH]

Are you trying to collect on that Black Panther bounty?

First, I do not think anyone has said he is guilty or wants him punished without trial. This is a strawman. Second, much of the evidence is available in the form of Zimmerman’s recording. It is not necessary to rely on news reports for that which one can hear from the mouth of the man in question.

I guess you skipped GaryTaylor’s posts.

 

[Lujack]

Well I am just so glad that the Judge Roy Beans have it figured out for all of us ignorant folk. Lets just get a rope and bring Zimmerman to the closest tree and string him up. I mean, why do we need a legal system when we have the brightest legal minds in the country right here who can deduce guilt or innocence just by what they read in the paper and see on the TV?

I am of the opinion that if a grown man shoots a 17 year old dead under extremely disputed circumstances, that justifies a trial on the face of it. I was not aware that this was the equivalent of calling for Zimmerman’s death.

 

[scipio337]

I am of the opinion that if a grown man shoots a 17 year old dead under extremely disputed circumstances, that justifies a trial on the face of it. I was not aware that this was the equivalent of calling for Zimmerman’s death.

That’s really not how “due process” works. There would need to be an investigation before a trial.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am of the opinion that if a grown man shoots a 17 year old dead under extremely disputed circumstances, that justifies a trial on the face of it. I was not aware that this was the equivalent of calling for Zimmerman’s death.

And if the state prosecutor and the grand jury believe that there is enough evidence to indict him and charge him with a crime, that is what will happen. Until it does, no one here on this forum knows enough to make an informed opinion. As of now, it is all speculations and rumor mongering, things that Christians are called to avoid. We are called to seek Truth, regardless of how painful it is.

 

[maryjk]

Sure is.

Well when you run around playing Superman I guess 911 isn’t on the list. But ya think?

I have no idea what you mean here. Who was playing “Superman?” Martin? Because he is the one that didn’t call 911. He called his girlfriend. Zimmerman called 911.

Mean what, the kid scared fought for his life the last few moments of his life before he was murdered in Cold Blood? What fingerprints are on the weapon and what other weapon exits? OH well if there was an “arrest” maybe we could have sorted all this chaos out “first”. Correctly.

What weapon did the kid have? Oh right NONE. An Ice Tea and Bag of Skittles.

Or the witness saying that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating him. There were many reasons for not arresting him on the spot.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Self-defense, self-defence (see spelling differences) or private defense is a “countermeasure” that involves defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from harm.

Did ya catch that point?

The use of the right of self-defense as a “legal justification” for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, “but the interpretation varies widely”.

Lega Justification, and where do you suppose that happen,oh well that would be COURT.

To be “acquitted” [which means ARRESTED, and found INNOCENT at TRAIL or by Plea Bargain, which the police do not do] of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. The threat of damage or loss of property alone is not enough.

What a minute folks hes stumbling, eyes rolling in his head, he’s holding his heart, Wait a minute folks hes coming back up, hes back up. Now did you catch this sentence; “one must prove legal provocation”

[meaning that one must “prove” that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to ,“death or serious injuries.”]

And where does that happen? Oh right the Superior Court system of the state.

Wiki Pedia. course we may have some great Law Professors who would like to Bless us with their wisdom.

I know not the best reference in the world, But alas its does seem to shed some light on the “notion” of self-defense.

Physical self defense is the use of physical force to counter an “immediate threat of violence”. Such force can be either armed or unarmed. In either case, the chances of success depend on a large number of parameters, “related to the severity of the threat on one hand”, but also on the mental and physical preparedness of the defender.

Brief summary for our on-line attorneys, however, I wasn’t there and Thank God for that. A day in court IMHO of course would surely have resolved the Circus, likely lessened the reality of this guy spending of about 99-years in prison, and he probly would have received the so obvious needed help. But hey that would have required an arrest and avoiding every publicity hound in America weighing in.

Alas here we are.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have no idea what you mean here. Who was playing “Superman?” Martin? …

Zimmerman!!!

Because he is the one that didn’t call 911. He called his girlfriend. Zimmerman called 911…

Who cares if the kid called his girlfriend he’s a kid. Zimmerman should have waited for the 911 response.

Or the witness saying that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating him. .

I would have fought for my life also and have how about you?

There were many reasons for not arresting him on the spot.

Okay…Give us your legal “list” of these “many” good reasons:shrug: I fail to see ONE!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I guess you skipped GaryTaylor’s posts.

Perhaps you read more into it than what was stated. First, I do not think anyone, certainly not I, said he is guilty or wants him punished without trial.

That said, its certainly would have made great sense to me, that is in light of the circus, to detain the man, charge him, investigate, and let the legal system sort out the mess.

If he’s found innocent, amen. Go home, be careful next time you play cops and robbers.

 

[Lujack]

And if the state prosecutor and the grand jury believe that there is enough evidence to indict him and charge him with a crime, that is what will happen. Until it does, no one here on this forum knows enough to make an informed opinion. As of now, it is all speculations and rumor mongering, things that Christians are called to avoid. We are called to seek Truth, regardless of how painful it is.

So if I’m not a policeman or a prosecutor, I can’t have an opinion on this case or discuss it publicly?