Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seamus_L said:
If the claims are true, what should Zimmerman have done ? Allow Martin to continue beating him ? How many punches should he be required to take from the child, who by some accounts was 6-3.
Click to expand...
To start, he could have let the police confront the suspect, as they are trained in how to do this without killing him and they are identified by their uniform as the proper authority to do this. This is the big one. No following this man when you are armed and angry, not unfortunate chain of events. After he was losing the fight that was started, he might could have warned the young man that we would shoot him if he did not back off. In the tape, there is not time from the yelling for help and the gun shot for such a warning to take place.

He did not have to follow the instructions of the dispatcher, as this has been pointed out. However, when he makes a decision to preceed contrary to that instruction, he takes a fair measure of responsibility for his reckless decision.
 
Seamus_L said:
If the claims are true, what should Zimmerman have done ? Allow Martin to continue beating him ? How many punches should he be required to take from the child, who by some accounts was 6-3.
Click to expand...
IF

If the kid had a machine gun, if the kid had a gang with him, if the kid drew out a samurai sword, if the kid came at him with a baseball bat. Lots of IFs I think, from everyone on this Forum who don’t have all the facts.
 
pnewton said:
To start, he could have let the police confront the suspect, as they are trained in how to do this without killing him and they are identified by their uniform as the proper authority to do this. This is the big one. No following this man when you are armed and angry, not unfortunate chain of events. After he was losing the fight that was started, he might could have warned the young man that we would shoot him if he did not back off. In the tape, there is not time from the yelling for help and the gun shot for such a warning to take place.
Click to expand...
YES YES YES and thank you!
 
SamH said:
Irrelevant because asking questions like that totally derail your approach to this story.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant becasue no such thing happened.
The child was not talking to 911.
“Supposing” that he was is irrelevant.
 
Seamus_L said:
How many punches should he be required to take from the child, who by some accounts was 6-3.
Click to expand...
Before you shoot in a confrontation that you initiated, I would say that it would not be justified unless one was in fear of death, being beaten far worse than a bloody nose, and the other person would not quit at the threat of deadly force.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
IF

If the kid had a machine gun, if the kid had a gang with him, if the kid drew out a samurai sword, if the kid came at him with a baseball bat. Lots of IFs I think, from everyone on this Forum who don’t have all the facts.
Click to expand...
Actually the entire story is nothing but “ifs”.
 
pnewton said:
Before you shoot in a confrontation that you initiated, I would say that it would not be justified unless one was in fear of death, being beaten far worse than a bloody nose, and the other person would not quit at the threat of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Also it would have been so wise to say:
“hey son, i’m gonna have to kill you.
see I have this big old gun, so stop hitting me.”

Too easy for some, I guess.
 
SamH said:
Actually the entire story is nothing but “ifs”.
Click to expand...
NOT “IFS.”

Zimmerman was packing a gun.
911 told him he need not follow the child.
Zimmerman followed the child anyway.
Zimmerman killed the boy.

No ifs there.
FACTS.
 
catharina said:
Also it would have been so wise to say:
“hey son, i’m gonna have to kill you.
see I have this big old gun, so stop hitting me.”

Too easy for some, I guess.
Click to expand...
To make a statement like that would open him up for murder charges. It shows premeditation.
 
SamH said:
To make a statement like that would open him up for murder charges. It shows premeditation.
Click to expand...
Are you endorsing “kill the boy without warning?”
Sounds like you are. I never said he had to SHOOT him.
Simply WARN him.
 
catharina said:
NOT “IFS.”

Zimmerman was packing a gun.
911 told him he need not follow the child.
Zimmerman followed the child anyway.
Zimmerman killed the boy.

No ifs there.
FACTS.
Click to expand...
Last Friday I was followed and “confronted” by a man in down town Tulsa at 5 AM in the morning - in your mind I should have beaten him to a bloody pulp?
 
Seamus_L said:
If the claims are true, what should Zimmerman have done ? Allow Martin to continue beating him ? How many punches should he be required to take from the child, who by some accounts was 6-3.
Click to expand...
Well, if Zimmerman started the altercation in a way that caused Trayvon Martin to reasonably fear for his safety, Martin is permitted to defend himself and Zimmerman can’t claim self-defense.

That’s likely going to be the issue of the trial.
 
Lujack said:
Well, if Zimmerman started the altercation in a way that caused Trayvon Martin to reasonably fear for his safety, Martin is permitted to defend himself and Zimmerman can’t claim self-defense.

That’s likely going to be the issue of the trial.
Click to expand...
Again, a lot of “ifs”.
 
SamH said:
What you wrote is not a warning, it’s a threat to kill.
Click to expand...
Oops for you. Isadi (full quote):

**Originally Posted by catharina
Also it would have been so wise to say:
“hey son, i’m gonna have to kill you.
see I have this big old gun, so stop hitting me.”

Too easy for some, I guess.**

Very clear warning:
“stop hitting me or i’ll kill you.”
 
SamH said:
Last Friday I was followed and “confronted” by a man in down town Tulsa at 5 AM in the morning - in your mind I should have beaten him to a bloody pulp?
Click to expand...
A broken nose and stitches to the head are not “being beaten to a bloody pulp”. Those are ugly injuries, sure, but many times a broken nose isn’t even a serious injury.
 
Lujack said:
A broken nose and stitches to the head are not “being beaten to a bloody pulp”. Those are ugly injuries, sure, but many times a broken nose isn’t even a serious injury.
Click to expand...
Yep - way far away from “beaten to a bloody pulp.”
 
SamH said:
Again, a lot of “ifs”.
Click to expand...
That’s actually one “if”, and I pointed out that its likely going to be the major issue of the trial. Maybe I should carefully restate my position so that I can’t be accused of being in a lynch mob or being opposed to the rule of law:

**Zimmerman is morally culpable for the death of Trayvon Martin because instead of leaving things to the professionals, he took the responsibility for confronting suspects on himself. He is also morally culpable because he doesn’t seem to have had any reasonable grounds for even suspecting Trayvon Martin, because he failed to listen to the advice of a professional, or to follow the guidelines of the national Neighborhood Watch association (namely, not to go around armed and not to confront suspects himself.

He may be legally culpable. It seems to me to be likely that he is. I do believe that the facts, on their face, merit a trial so that they can be more closely examined by the proper people. I think that on general principles most “Stand Your Ground” self-defense cases (as opposed to those that take place in the home) should probably end in trial; self-defense is an affirmative defense and using lethal force is an extreme action that does legally need to be justified (unless in case of a home invasion, in which case the person claiming self-defense gets the benefit of the doubt because, well, their home has been invaded.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top