Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[pnewton]

Hi, again,

That’s why I like Texas with our Castle Doctrine. The DA doesn’t come into it unless a Grand Jury indicts the shooter.

Too bad George Zimmerman isn’t afforded the same hearing by Sanford city law or Florida state law of a Grand Jury. Too bad the witch hunt is pressuring the Sanford DA.

God loves you,
Don

The Texas Castle Doctrine does not apply to shoot-outs in public. It only applies to one’s own property.

If one has no duty to retreat in order to exercise self-defense, then Martin too would have had the right to violently defend himself against an agressive Zimmerman. He would not have to wait until Zimmerman gunned him down to attack. Thus, the first blow is irrelevant. Allowing stand your ground to apply in public justifies legal gun fights, as both parties stand their ground.

 

[Dawnia]

That’s just not true. The “duty to retreat” was a part of English common law since before the creation of the American Republic, and with the rest of English common law became the basis of American law (with the exception of Louisiana). In fact, the idea of self-defense as an acceptable affirmative defense is younger than the idea of “duty to retreat”-William Blackstone refused to acknowledge it in his own legal commentaries, saying that “All homicides are a public evil.” We’ve fortunately moved away from that extreme, but we certainly don’t need to go to the other of “It is acceptable to kill anyone who threatens you.”

Now before you call Blackstone unAmerican, bear in mind that the first Supreme Court Justices of the United States relied very heavily on Blackstone in their decisionmaking, his influence is clearly visible in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall considered him the highest authority, and his commentaries were the standard legal textbook for would-be American lawyers even into the 1860’s.

Interesting. How did they rectify this with dueling?

 

[Lujack]

Interesting. How did they rectify this with dueling?

They didn’t, as far as I can tell. Dueling might have been popular, but it was always a crime

In England, at least, dueling had been illegal since the 1600’s; Cromwell actually prescribed the death penalty for trying to arrange a duel. Ironically, dueling became more accepted in the 19th century and under Queen Victoria than it had been during the old days.

Dueling in the US was not specifically banned, but if you killed someone in a duel you were technically guilty of murder. Courts would either be lax on this or strict on this depending on the jurisdiction-Massachusetts, for example, was more likely to prosecute than Virginia. Then, as people started to get sickened by the practice more and more laws came in specifically banning dueling-some state constitutions ban it now.

 

[jen_fla]

csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0403/George-Zimmerman-ready-to-surrender-if-charged

George Zimmerman ready to surrender, if charged

Can anyone clarify whether or not Zimmerman actually continued to pursue Martin after asked not to? The 911 recording doesn’t seem to specify, but the news reports make it out as if he chased him down.

according to the map catharina posted in the previous thread, we can see that george was far away from his truck. if you listen to the 911 call you can hear his car door open (ding sounds) and then close right around the time he was asked if he was following him. from that we can conclude he walked towards trayvon or was walking around looking for him. he was still on the phone and did not sound like he was running.

regardless, even though many of us think that was dumb, reckless, unethical etc, it still wasnt illegal and doesn’t tell us what happened when they met up.

 

[Bocephus]

according to the map catharina posted in the previous thread, we can see that george was far away from his truck. if you listen to the 911 call you can hear his car door open (ding sounds) and then close right around the time he was asked if he was following him. from that we can conclude he walked towards trayvon or was walking around looking for him. he was still on the phone and did not sound like he was running.

regardless, even though many of us think that was dumb, reckless, unethical etc, it still wasnt illegal and doesn’t tell us what happened when they met up.

It sounds like to me he lost him and may have been walking around looking for him. In my opinion, that’s not such a bad mistake as if he was tailing him the whole time and then approached him as I originally thought. I read that Zimmerman’s statement was that Martin approached him, is there anything else to contradict that? Could Zimmerman have been looking around while he was waiting for the police and Martin came out of wherever he was and approached Zimmerman with the intentions to start a fight?

 

[Bocephus]

The Texas Castle Doctrine does not apply to shoot-outs in public. It only applies to one’s own property.

If one has no duty to retreat in order to exercise self-defense, then Martin too would have had the right to violently defend himself against an agressive Zimmerman. He would not have to wait until Zimmerman gunned him down to attack. Thus, the first blow is irrelevant. Allowing stand your ground to apply in public justifies legal gun fights, as both parties stand their ground.

If Zimmerman was jumped by Martin, especially if the physical contact was initiated from behind, there would have been no way for Zimmerman to escape assuming Martin then gets on top of him and starts beating him.

If they went toe to toe and Martin just got the first punch in and won the fist fight, then Zimmerman shot him…that’s a different story.

A duty to retreat is assuming you have the ability to retreat from the confrontation. Zimmerman wasn’t standing his ground if he was on the ground getting pounded.

 

[Bocephus]

Zimmerman says he was on his way back to his truck after he hung up with dispatch. According to one of the FBI investigators from the case. I will post the link if I figure out which of the millions of articles it was that I saw this.

If that’s the case, and the truth, then Martin very well could have come after Zimmerman with God knows what intentions. Maybe Martin was doing something wrong to respond in such a way, did he get caught and retaliate?

 

[jen_fla]

It sounds like to me he lost him and may have been walking around looking for him. In my opinion, that’s not such a bad mistake as if he was tailing him the whole time and then approached him as I originally thought. I read that Zimmerman’s statement was that Martin approached him, is there anything else to contradict that? Could Zimmerman have been looking around while he was waiting for the police and Martin came out of wherever he was and approached Zimmerman with the intentions to start a fight?

it’s possible gz walked up to tm
it’s possible tm walked up to gz

it’s possible gz sneaked up on, tackled or rushed at tm
it’s possible tm sneaked up on, tackled or rushed at gz

 

[Bocephus]

it’s possible gz walked up to tm
it’s possible tm walked up to gz

it’s possible gz sneaked up on, tackled or rushed at tm
it’s possible tm sneaked up on, tackled or rushed at gz

Thanks.

That’s my point, it’s possible that everyone criticizing Zimmerman and crying out for Martin are totally off in their initial judgment and beliefs and Zimmerman is absolutely innocent. It’s also possible that the investigators and DA did their job and this is a total waste of time. What’s likely is that if this special investigator reaches the same conclusion the DA and investigators did, this still wont be over.

 

[jen_fla]

If that’s the case, and the truth, then Martin very well could have come after Zimmerman with God knows what intentions. Maybe Martin was doing something wrong to respond in such a way, did he get caught and retaliate?

if it is true that z said that he was on his way back to his truck, then he might be in big trouble if i’m right about the car noises as audio forensics can test that. the shooting was not near his truck at all.

edit: i havent seen any articles stating that was what he said, i’ve just only read it from other posters.

 

[Bocephus]

if it is true that z said that he was on his way back to his truck, then he might be in big trouble if i’m right about the car noises as audio forensics can test that. the shooting was not near his truck at all.

Maybe, but being on his way back to it and near it is two different things.

 

[jen_fla]

Maybe, but being on his way back to it and near it is two different things.

tmrw, if i have time i’ll post map and we’ll analyze. sleep beckons. good night.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Texas Castle Doctrine does not apply to shoot-outs in public. It only applies to one’s own property.

If one has no duty to retreat in order to exercise self-defense, then Martin too would have had the right to violently defend himself against an agressive Zimmerman. He would not have to wait until Zimmerman gunned him down to attack. Thus, the first blow is irrelevant. Allowing stand your ground to apply in public justifies legal gun fights, as both parties stand their ground.

From my understanding, Zimmerman was “retreating” to his car and had not initiated any confrontation. It was Martin who initiated the actual confrontation between the two.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Crime happens everywhere and there are ways of protecting property that do not include shadowing every stranger arbitrarily deemed to be ‘suspicious’. At my house, we have one of those means in place - it’s called a security system.

It’s good you can afford one. Not everyone can.

 

[SamH]

geez yourself.

1. Do you not understand that Stand Your Ground Laws go not equal gun ownership rights? Therefore, the nationwide questioning of the tragic repercussions of these reactionary Stand Your Ground laws does not automatically mean an attack on “gun laws”.
2. When someone mentions an “attack” on “gun laws” it definitely means an attack on gun ownership rights, therefore the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s guns. What the heck else are you trying to say it means? Do you mean there is an “attack” on “gun laws” but at the same time they want everyone to keep their guns? It’s nonsense. Of course he was talking about the loss of the right to own guns, which means taking away people’s gun.

So you don’t want to address what the vice President is talking about?

 

[SamH]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense and bears a burden of proof. The standard of proof required is lower than “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, so it still protects the “innocent until proven guilty” provision, but I would hold the position that any self-defense case outside one’s own home being invaded should typically (barring exceptional circumstances) go to trial.

Just because it’s your personal opinion doesn’t mean it applies to a legal situation.

 

[iamrefreshed]

1. The violent criminal doesn’t have more right to occupy the space than you do-the violent criminal will be arrested and punished for his actions.
2. If there is no duty to retreat, if the reasonable person who feels threatened is always allowed to open fire…it makes it easier to get to a situation like this one might have been, where Zimmerman and Martin feel threatened by each other and are therefore legally permitted to try to kill each other.

Think about it-I’m walking down a dark street at night. You perceive me as a threat. Since you have a duty to retreat, you can’t just shoot me because you feel threatened. I feel threatened by you-I can’t just shoot you because I feel threatened, since I also have a duty to retreat. We walk away.

Under “Stand Your Ground” laws, if we both feel in imminent danger of violence…we’re both allowed to shoot each other, and neither of us has even committed a crime. This seems to be a real problem to me.

Also, you haven’t even backed up your claim that the right to bear arms somehow becomes “the right to shoot anyone who I feel threatened by”.

You do understand that the law requires the threatened person must be resonably sure they are threatened? And that they cannot use deadly force unless they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm themselves?

 

[SamH]

With respect, your post shows you to have certain false premises and wild ideas that would make any agreement between you and a basically rational person impossible for very long.

With respect I don’t think you are qualified to speculate on what kind of agreement a basically rational person might make on this topic.

 

[scipio337]

…

Your questions were not plain, they were convoluted and confused, but you probably don’t realize this. On the off chance you can join us in clear-headed debate, how about answering this basic question: What is your motivation for not wanting a trial to determine all the facts in this case and determine what justice is?

With due respect, shouldnt’ the 3 or 4 ongoing investigations determine if charges and arrest are warranted first, before a trial?

Talk about convoluted and confused. “I demand an immediate trial and due process!”, even when a trial at this point totally overrides due process.

“Facts” aren’t determined during a trial. They are determined during the investigation.

I would second Bocephus’ claim:

What’s likely is that if this special investigator reaches the same conclusion the DA and investigators did, this still wont be over.

If the FBI, DoJ, and DA come to the same conclusion, and that there isn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, will you be satisfied?

First people demanded an “investigation” because they claim the Sanford PD botched it. Now, they are demanding a “trial”.

 

[Dawnia]

“Facts” aren’t determined during a trial. They are determined during the investigation.

.

Evidence is gathered during the investigation and the facts are determined in court. Seeing how there are two sides to every case, and both will have their own set of “facts”, it’s hard for both of them to be right. The Judge or jury is who decides what the real facts of the case are.