Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[GaryTaylor]

Well Sam I guess it depends which web-sight you view, I just seen “two” which confirm what the NH Rep stated. For example…

MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin by an armed, self-appointed Central Florida crime watch volunteer who claimed he shot in self defense has sparked a national debate about Florida’s law, technically known as the Castle doctrine.

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Looks like Triple to me? No?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Transcript:

911 dispatcher:

**Are you following him? **[2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

So the victim’s method of following the killer was… making him follow you? What?!

 

[donsnow]

No problem. With respect, I re-posted info that was already here.
Glad to hear that you appreciate it.

Hi,

Well, I should have clarified that I didn’t feel like reading 90 pages of posts before I waded in. I did go to the first page of the original thread and read the OP article.

Really, within reason, (20 pages or so) I will usually read all the posts on a thread before I post. So, you have a good point there.

God’s love,
Don

 

[Geist]

Derrrrrr… no.

“Derrrrr”? How rude. For someone who likes to spout facts you sure seem to let them (real ones anyway) get under your skin huh?

Obviously not what I said.

Actually, it was what you said.

I said he should be arrested for admitting to shooting and KILLING another human being.

In self-defense. So you said he should be handcuffed and dragged through the courts like a criminal. Unless “arrested” has another meaning in “fact” land.

Since you like to play the hyperbole game: whatever your opinions about him, this boy actually was a human being.

Who was trying to take the life of an actually innocent human being. Which your “facts” conveniently ignored.

Killer pursued victim after placing a call to police.

Yes, which is sensible. The idea is to be able to tell the police where the person went I assume.

Why did the killer pursue the victim after placing that call? I guess he was really worried about what the kid might be doing with his skittles? And that was such a major threat that he couldn’t wait for the police to arrive?

Maybe because young black males had committed what was it, eight robberies in the area recently? Sounds like cause to me.

In other words, killer had no reason to pursue. None.

Actually, he never “pursued”, he followed at a distance. Huge difference there fact master.

 

[SamH]

Show me where, towards the end of the transcript you see evidence that the victim is stalking the killer?

It’s not part of the transcript - how could it be? How could Zimmerman tell them he was being stalked when he couldn’t see Martin? If you are being successfully stalked you don’t know the person is approaching you. Zimmerman was nearly back to his truck when he was attacked.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Assuming the accounts which have been reported in this thread are true, then this is how I see it:

1. Following someone wasn’t a prudent thing to do, but lack of prudence isn’t a crime.
2. The above lack of prudence on the part of Zimmerman was in no way justification for Martin to attack.
3. Once Martin attacked Zimmerman (and we’re not just talking about knocking down and running or anything), Zimmerman was justified in shooting in self-defense to save his own life which was threatened.

 

[SamH]

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Looks like Triple to me? No?

Actually you did not state “Justified” (A great show by the way), you stated homicides. If 35 people successfully defended themselves it sounds like a great law.

 

[Geist]

Actually you did not state “Justified” (A great show by the way), you stated homicides.

I caught that too. Remember, theres facts and then theres “facts”.

The people who want to crucify a man for defending himself seem to favor “facts”.

 

[Havard]

Assuming the accounts which have been reported in this thread are true, then this is how I see it:

1. Following someone wasn’t a prudent thing to do, but lack of prudence isn’t a crime.
2. The above lack of prudence on the part of Zimmerman was in no way justification for Martin to attack.
3. Once Martin attacked Zimmerman (and we’re not just talking about knocking down and running or anything), Zimmerman was justified in shooting in self-defense to save his own life which was threatened.

But do we definitively know that Martin threw the first punch, or is that an assumption you’re making?

 

[Geist]

But do we definitively know that Martin threw the first punch, or is that an assumption you’re making?

What the witness said. Also, Zimmerman had injuries he received, not inflicted (no mention of him having bruised or scraped knuckles indicating he ever threw a punch for example).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually, he never “pursued”, he followed at a distance. Huge difference there fact master.

Following people doesn’t seem like a great idea in hindsight though. Just saying.

 

[SamH]

Transcript:

911 dispatcher:

**Are you following him? **[2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

So the victim’s method of following the killer was… making him follow you? What?!

So are you claiming Zimmerman followed Martin back to his own truck? After he told police that he had lost sight of Martin?

How does that work?

 

[SamH]

Following people doesn’t seem like like a great idea in hindsight though. Just saying.

Hindsight is always 20-20.

 

[donsnow]

OK, all,

I have caught up and am going on to other things. I’ll be back, barring the unforeseen, tomorrow.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

“Derrrrr”? How rude. For someone who likes to spout facts you sure seem to let them (real ones anyway) get under your skin huh?

Your post was condescending and filled with extreme hyperbole. My original post contained no such thing, and that’s how you responded to it. You think I owe you any deference when you act like that in a reply? Come on now.

You really thought that I think someone should be arrested for acting in self-defense? Of course not. But you don’t just determine that immediately upon arriving at a scene. And in this case, the killer wasn’t acting in self-defense, so it’s hard to prop that argument up.

Actually, it was what you said.

Give me a break. It was not. I said he should be arrested for shooting and killing someone.

In self-defense. So you said he should be handcuffed and dragged through the courts like a criminal. Unless “arrested” has another meaning in “fact” land.

Yeah. That’s what you do when someone shoots and kills somebody. It’s not really that hard to get.

Who was trying to take the life of an actually innocent human being. Which your “facts” conveniently ignored.

Yes, this guy was just walking around with a bag of skittles when he, for no apparent reason, decided to beat down a man who totally wasn’t stalking him, right? (except the transcript says otherwise). Said man also coincidentally happened to be an armed neighborhood vigilante. Big coincidence, huh?

Maybe because young black males had committed what was it, eight robberies in the area recently? Sounds like cause to me.

Right, so if one black male did one thing, they’re all suspects? What?!

Actually, he never “pursued”, he followed at a distance. Huge difference there fact master.

You said the victim “went after” the killer. A few things are totally clear:

1. If the killer had not been pursuing the victim, none of this would have happened.You know why? Because the victim WASN’T pursuing the killer.
2. There’s no evidence that the victim was a burglar or for that matter, that he was engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

Wrong again. Killer abandoned “victim” and was leaving by getting into his vehicle when “victim” attacked him while was on the phone with 911.

I repeat this quote, because I have now posted the transcript twice. This is demonstrably false. Where did you get this?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

But do we definitively know that Martin threw the first punch, or is that an assumption you’re making?

Did you read what I wrote?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hindsight is always 20-20.

Well lets look foward what would you do IF someone was following you? Right, you don’t know.

Thats why theres a hearing to see what happened and whos responsible for what. Apparently as you see the media is a mixed message.

 

[SamH]

Your post was condescending and filled with extreme hyperbole. My original post contained no such thing, and that’s how you responded to it. You think I owe you any deference when you act like that in a reply? Come on now.

You really thought that I think someone should be arrested for acting in self-defense? Of course not. But you don’t just determine that immediately upon arriving at a scene. And in this case, the killer wasn’t acting in self-defense, so it’s hard to prop that argument up.

So why did Martin attack a bus driver?

 

[maryjk]

Assuming the accounts which have been reported in this thread are true, then this is how I see it:

1. Following someone wasn’t a prudent thing to do, but lack of prudence isn’t a crime.
2. The above lack of prudence on the part of Zimmerman was in no way justification for Martin to attack.
3. Once Martin attacked Zimmerman (and we’re not just talking about knocking down and running or anything), Zimmerman was justified in shooting in self-defense to save his own life which was threatened.

Gee, maybe that is why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested that night.

 

[Havard]

Did you read what I wrote?

Oh, sorry, you’re talking about the “assuming the accounts are true” part. No, sorry, I missed that!