Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[Bocephus]

That means even people without medical training know that trauma to the head can cause internal bleeding which can kill within hours. We have had several cases in the news, the most recent one resulting from a schoolgirl’s fight.

So commonsense would dictate that someone whose head was banged to the point he feared for his life, would also be someone who needed to have medical imaging done.

Is that not usually left up to the person involved?

If I’m not mistake it happened to Liam Neesons? wife or daughter? I think she just thought it was a headache and didn’t get herself taken care of if I remember right.

Either way, this attempt to solve the case based on shoddy information, video footage and shoulda coulda woulda’s is getting a tad annoying.

 

[Dawnia]

If you are right then the law is just ridiculous. You follow someone whom you know to be potentially dangerous (he is armed and you know it) and if you startle him and he turns on you, you have a right to claim self defense? If that is truly the law, then we can go back to ‘an eye for an eye’ and let it be every man for himself…

This only applies to means of escape in relation to a self-defense plea. The burden is on the defendant to convince the jury that it was self-defense and not whatever they are being charged with. It is not an easy argument to defend.

Now of course the DA could argue that you were following them with the sole intent of killing them. It would still be up to the jury to determine which is closer to the truth.

After seeing the case about the car radio thief, it makes me wonder about about FL.:whacky:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This only applies to means of escape in relation to a self-defense plea. The burden is on the defendant to convince the jury that it was self-defense and not whatever they are being charged with. It is not an easy thing argument to defend.

Now of course the DA could argue that you were following them with the sole intent of killing them. It would still be up to the jury to determine which is closer to the truth.

After seeing the case about the car radio thief, it makes me wonder about about FL.:whacky:

Must be the constant heat.

 

[seekerz]

After seeing the case about the car radio thief, it makes me wonder about about FL.:whacky:

You’re not the only one wondering either. There has to be some sensible middle ground that allows for reasonable defense of life and limb without giving people loopholes you could drive a truck through.

 

[Bezant]

Unless that “stranger” shows the proper identification, like a policeman’s badge.
Aside from that, er…nope.

Not even. You don’t have to respond to the police.

 

[seekerz]

Is that not usually left up to the person involved?

If I’m not mistake it happened to Liam Neesons? wife or daughter? I think she just thought it was a headache and didn’t get herself taken care of if I remember right.

Either way, this attempt to solve the case based on shoddy information, video footage and shoulda coulda woulda’s is getting a tad annoying.

What I find extremely irritating, is the lack of consideration given to the public’s intelligence by those who regularly trot out ‘new information’ to support their story. By all means, give information, but don’t assume that people are clueless.

 

[seekerz]

Not even. You don’t have to respond to the police.

That’s true. But I would think it prudent for my son to respond to their questions and be sent on his way, than escalate a situation. Just one of those things in life that he’ll learn to deal with, because the alternative isn’t worth the fuss. Besides, having someone call the police on you for nothing, simply makes the caller look silly.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What I find extremely irritating, is the lack of consideration given to the public’s intelligence by those who regularly trot out ‘new information’ to support their story. By all means, give information, but don’t assume that people are clueless.

:clapping:

 

[Dawnia]

You’re not the only one wondering either. There has to be some sensible middle ground that allows for reasonable defense of life and limb without giving people loopholes you could drive a truck through.

Totally agree!

 

[Bezant]

That’s true. But I would think it prudent for my son to respond to their questions and be sent on his way, than escalate a situation. Just one of those things in life that he’ll learn to deal with, because the alternative isn’t worth the fuss. Besides, having someone call the police on you for nothing, simply makes the caller look silly.

However, it’s important to be informed about when and what information you are required to disclose to the police. Sometimes the fear of escalation or arrest leads people to self-incriminate when legally they were never required to do so.

Of course, none of these obligations apply to civilians.

 

[jen_fla]

If it matters:

Treyvon’s parents were on Geraldo a few minutes ago and they declare they had nothing personally to do with the Black Panthers posting the “reward” for Zimmerman. And that they do not condone it. In fact, they declared this is not really about race but “justice.”
Their lawyer said they want an arrest of Zimmerman-------ONLY by the authorities. Anything ele would encoutrage, they say, the very vigilantism that caused Treyvon’s death.

Also, Geraldo apologized for his “hoodie” comments. The parents accepted the apology.

Just saying…

Yep.

+1

 

[jen_fla]

True, but I would posit that even Treyvon’s father would back off when directly told to by a 911 operator and let the police handle it. And also remember, Neigbhboorhood Watch (most that I know of, at least) are supposed to OBSERVE and REPORT, not to ENGAGE (except under certain circumstances).

OF COURSE, there are different views as to whether GZ actually obeyed the orders to back down----some say yes, some say no. I personally tend to doubt it, but I could be wrong.

But again, yes, let’s see what the investigation finds.

i think you missed some of the posts where we went over this. we were discussing that there was no evidence that he followed him after the dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to do that” and it turns out from a map that was posted on the previous thread, that george did continue to follow him.

however, he was not given any order nor does the dispatcher have any authority to tell him to back down. george lived in that community and was free to walk where ever he wanted. he even was free to approach trayvon and ask him a question. what he was not free to do was to assault him, try to detain him in any way, pull a gun on him or threaten him.

i think people are so very angry that he followed him, that they forget it wasn’t illegal for him to do so.

 

[jen_fla]

It just seems that the current law will lead to more Floridians getting killed, not fewer.

I think that if the duty to retreat when retreat is possible is removed, then every time there is a fight, both parties could honestly say they felt their lives were threatened, nobody has the duty to back off, and so the state seems to be essentially telling their citizens that it is OK to fight it out to the death. When the smoke clears and somebody (predictably) is dead, unless the state can prove that the one standing started the fight, no one is at fault. That just sounds nuts to me!

hi easterjoy,

i just was checking to see if you saw the post i made for you showing that pretty much half the states in this country have stand your ground laws. oregon too.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9127393&postcount=268

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

i think you missed some of the posts where we went over this. we were discussing that there was no evidence that he followed him after the dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to do that” and it turns out from a map that was posted on the previous thread, that george did continue to follow him.

however, he was not given any order nor does the dispatcher have any authority to tell him to back down. george lived in that community and was free to walk where ever he wanted. he even was free to approach trayvon and ask him a question. what he was not free to do was to assault him, try to detain him in any way, pull a gun on him or threaten him.

i think people are so very angry that he followed him, that they forget it wasn’t illegal for him to do so.

Then it all comes down to whether ab 17-year old is going to SUPPOSEDLY attack a Neighborhood Watch guy for no reason-----what was it GZ’s father says-----------he says GZ told him TM said “this is going to be your last day?”

OR did GZ apparently shoot TM for no apparent reason?

Or it could be something off of left field.

And what was GZ’s ultimate reason for following TM? That he was "suspicious?

If he was so “innocent.” why were some cops wanting to charge him with manslaughter that very night? Only because the DA dropped the charges did they back off.

Are you saying there’s nothing to it.

I know this does not sound fair, but I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s more to this case than just an innocent Neighborhood Watch captain being attacked by a possibly suspicious black. Trayvon may have acted orresponsibly, but so may have GZ. He APPARENTLY followed a black man for no apparent reason then apparently shot him for no apparent reason. (MY opinion).

There should be an investigation, and there should be an arrest if necessary. In fact, I will say an arrest is warranted. But that’s just me, of course. Me and many other people—white, black, brown, etc.

Let him argue self–defense if he needs to and let a jury decide.

Do YOU personally think there’s nothing at all to this?

 

[Bocephus]

Then it all comes down to whether ab 17-year old is going to SUPPOSEDLY attack a Neighborhood Watch guy for no reason-----what was it GZ’s father says-----------he says GZ told him TM said “this is going to be your last day?”

OR did GZ apparently shoot TM for no apparent reason?

Or it could be something off of left field.

And what was GZ’s ultimate reason for following TM? That he was "suspicious?

If he was so “innocent.” why were some cops wanting to charge him with manslaughter that very night? Only because the DA dropped the charges did they back off.

Are you saying there’s nothing to it.

I know this does not sound fair, but I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s more to this case than just an innocent Neighborhood Watch captain being attacked by a possibly suspicious black. Trayvon may have acted orresponsibly, but so may have GZ. He APPARENTLY followed a black man for no apparent reason then apparently shot him for no apparent reason. (MY opinion).

There should be an investigation, and there should be an arrest if necessary. In fact, I will say an arrest is warranted. But that’s just me, of course. Me and many other people—white, black, brown, etc.

Let him argue self–defense if he needs to and let a jury decide.

Do YOU personally think there’s nothing at all to this?

Manslaughter is charged quite often even if the person involved technically did nothing illegal. I have a little bit of experience with that one, not me personally getting charged though.

 

[jen_fla]

Then it all comes down to whether ab 17-year old is going to SUPPOSEDLY attack a Neighborhood Watch guy for no reason-----what was it GZ’s father says-----------he says GZ told him TM said “this is going to be your last day?”

OR did GZ apparently shoot TM for no apparent reason?

Or it could be something off of left field.

And what was GZ’s ultimate reason for following TM? That he was "suspicious?

If he was so “innocent.” why were some cops wanting to charge him with manslaughter that very night? Only because the DA dropped the charges did they back off.

Are you saying there’s nothing to it.

I know this does not sound fair, but I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s more to this case than just an innocent Neighborhood Watch captain being attacked by a possibly suspicious black. Trayvon may have acted orresponsibly, but so may have GZ. He APPARENTLY followed a black man for no apparent reason then apparently shot him for no apparent reason. (MY opinion).

There should be an investigation, and there should be an arrest if necessary. In fact, I will say an arrest is warranted. But that’s just me, of course. Me and many other people—white, black, brown, etc.

Let him argue self–defense if he needs to and let a jury decide.

Do YOU personally think there’s nothing at all to this?

no why would you think that?

my gut feeling is that he is guilty, however, our feelings don’t really matter. we have to stick to facts and can’t jump to any conclusions. personally i think it was wrong for him to approach trayvon (if that is even what he did), but it still isn’t illegal for him to do so. personally i think he should have just kept his eye on him from a distance until the cops arrived if he truly believed he was suspicious.

however, what the law is going to look at is, did george rush at him, try to detain him, pull his gun on him, threaten him etc.

or did trayvon start wailing on george? his girlfriend said she heard a voice ask him what he was doing there. maybe trayvon at that point realized he wasn’t going to get mugged but felt the guy was being racist and got angry and threw the first punch. he wouldn’t be the first teen to fly off the handle. my gut doubts that, but again we weren’t there so we don’t know.

i’d like to see the report for what george originally told police, because i’ve heard so many conflicting things. i believe a relative said that after he asked him a question, george reached for his phone and that’s when trayvon hit him. IF it is true that george was reaching for his phone, it could also be that trayvon was scared and thought george was reaching for his gun. i just don’t know. i think the best evidence will be the audio forensics. i know two experts came out today and said they had a match, but other experts say they would need a sample of george screaming which i doubt he gave to the prosecutor. hopefully they also can get some samples of trayvon’s voice from video.

i am very glad this case is going to be thoroughly investigated. like i said before, there is far, far too much violent crime these days and i’d rather see police with their limited resources use more towards violent crime and less (if any) on the failed, irrational war on drugs.

all in all though the whole thing is so tragic. trayvon is dead, and george (who i do not believe was a racist and who i am sure would give anything to go back and change what happened) will most likely never again have any peace.

and yes, a jury does need to decide, which is why the news has a responsibility to report facts and not edit tapes. i seriously hope nbc is sued for that.

 

[pnewton]

i think people are so very angry that he followed him, that they forget it wasn’t illegal for him to do so.

Since he thought this kid was an a*****e, thought he was a criminal and he himself was packing a gun, it was unwise, even reckless, though not criminal. That is why I have no problem with him having to defend himself in a court of law and justify his actions. When people commit reckless acts and those acts result in death or injury to another, then my sympathy for them being required to defend their innocence, post bond, and be inconvenienced in life, is greatly reduced.

 

[seekerz]

Strangely enough, I think my feelings in this case would be much different if the story from Zimmerman’s side had been that of a case of mistaken identity resulting in an accidental death, even if racial profiling seemed to be involved.

Generally, when people are killed, unless it is shown that the person calmly and deliberately set out to kill, I tend to be quite sympathetic to the one doing the killing. It’s disturbing to think that one can wake up fine one morning and end the day facing murder charges because of a bad decision, an unexpected turn of events or simply one’s human flaws. That is especially true when young or immature people are involved. I tend to identify with the accused, their families, and especially their mothers, thinking: “but for the grace of God…”

My big, big problem with the case is the attempts to blame it all on Martin without having to really prove in a court of law that he was in any way at fault. That just does not seem fair and I am encouraged by the present efforts to make sure that is not the last word.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Strangely enough, I think my feelings in this case would be much different if the story from Zimmerman’s side had been that of a case of mistaken identity resulting in an accidental death, even if racial profiling seemed to be involved.

Generally, when people are killed, unless it is shown that the person calmly and deliberately set out to kill, I tend to be quite sympathetic to the one doing the killing. It’s disturbing to think that one can wake up fine one morning and end the day facing murder charges because of a bad decision, an unexpected turn of events or simply one’s human flaws. That is especially true when young or immature people are involved. I tend to identify with the accused, their families, and especially their mothers, thinking: “but for the grace of God…”

My big, big problem with the case is the attempts to blame it all on Martin without having to really prove in a court of law that he was in any way at fault. That just does not seem fair and I am encouraged by the present efforts to make sure that is not the last word.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Where are images or did I miss a link?

"Trayvon Martin: ABC enhances George Zimmerman video

ABC News has re-digitized video of George Zimmerman taken shortly after Trayvon Martin’s shooting.

The video was unveiled as an exclusive this morning on “Good Morning America.” ABC was the first news organization to show the original tape.

Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows “what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman’s head.”…

Blue excerpt from: articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-enhanced-video-040212_1_reporter-matt-gutman-abc-news-neighborhood-watch-volunteer-zimmerman