Trayvon Martin

[Texsox]

The big change with the new law was the person is not required to retreat if possible. Under the old self defense laws, since Zimmerman was in a car he had an obligation to leave. Now the person can stand and defend. The law was passed to make it easier to defend yourself and stop arrests and prosecutions. Florida also has very loose gun laws. This is exactly what they have allowed with their laws. Florida and 20 other states want it easier to stand up for yourself instead of running from criminals. I can see why the guy was not arrested. He had injuries, he had reported a suspicious person. Now with the new information, the testimony from his girlfriend, (which cannot be collaborated or verified) I think they should make a new decision and arrest him.

 

The other big problem I see is "feeling" threatened. Each of us have different fears and levels of fear. Lostfan in a hoodie caused my blood to run cold. Why should there be a sliding scale? Grandma from Ohio may, and possibly justifiably so, feel "threatened" where I would be "concerned" and Knight felt "comfortable". Why should grandma be allowed to fire her weapon and knot knight?

 

And to be clear, I believe what Zimmerman did was morally wrong. But if the articles I read were accurate and the criteria is feeling threatened, and without any obligation to leave as was easily available, than it just may have been legal. And if that is the case, and states don't fix their laws, then God help us all.

[Texsox]

And by the way, the justifiable force statute is premised on the fact that YOU (the shooter) are not doing something illegal. I'd say starting a fight is an illegal activity (battery) making this entire statute inapplicable. Since there's some pretty strong evidence out there that the dead guy was being followed and harassed, it's entirely proper (and reasonable) for a jury to conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl, engaged in criminal activity (battery) and was therefore not afforded the protection of the statute. That's why my point 2 comments ago about punching people in the face to justify killing doesn't work.

I hope you are correct. However, one example I read was a killing between two gang members. The killer was not charged because the prosecutors felt the other gang member (the killer) had a legitimate fear for his safety. Another prosecutor suggested that it was theoretically possible that two gang members in a beef could say, grab your gun meet me in the street in five minutes. In theory, the resulting killing would be covered by self defense. Each had a reasonable fear and was protecting themselves.

[clyons]

Yeah but it has to apply to other protected activities, usually employment.

 

It can also extend to being in a public place. I know this happened in a "gated community," so that might not apply here. I have read that the Justice Department has launched an investigation, so presumbably there is some federal basis for their involvement, but this is an election year.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

This tale was broadly repeated by Zimmerman's father who claimed that his son had neither pursued nor confronted Martin.

 

I always get a kick out of family members commenting on the innocence of their relatives. Unless you were there, you have s*** to say on the matter. Your comments are about as valid as those of a blade of grass that happened to be growing near the scene.

[Texsox]

I know that murder is typically a state and not a Federal offense, but are there any grounds on which the Feds can go after him if the state refuses?

 

 

I heard the feds are involved if it is a race crime. That seem to depend on the tape with so far has been inconclusive. If he uttered a racial slur seconds before the killing, as some people claim, then the feds can be involved.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I always get a kick out of family members commenting on the innocence of their relatives. Unless you were there, you have s*** to say on the matter. Your comments are about as valid as those of a blade of grass that happened to be growing near the scene.

 

He looks especially dumb when his statement is directly contradicted by his own son's 911 call.

[Soxbadger]

Police chief has temporarily resigned.

 

In my opinion this a terrible application of the law, and that begs the question, why are the police interpreting law? Generally the job of the police is to make an arrest and then for the district attorney to apply the law and determine whether the charges should be brought.

 

I still am unclear why a police officer would ever believe that were "prohibited" from making an arrest. Murder is a crime, self-defense, as most people would imagine, is a defense. Just because you have a defense, doesnt mean the police cant arrest you or that the DA cant try and convict you. Ultimately its the trier of fact who determines whether the defense should apply.

 

At the end of the day, I expect charges to be filed.

[Soxbadger]

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/doc...in_shooting.pdf

 

Here is more information, it seems Florida is run by criminals.

 

According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of

force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is

justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for

the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law

enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of

his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with

any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that

the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal

prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the

defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of

force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using

force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was

 

 

(1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using

force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was

unlawful.

 

This one of the most illogical ideas ever. The law should have been written the other way, that in all instances use of deadly force is considered unlawful and therefore you must arrest. If evidence is shown that the use of deadly force may have been justified, the DA may, in their discretion, drop the charges.

 

Just wait until this law is used by some gang member against a senior citizen. I guarantee the law changes then.

 

"They threatened me with a cane, so I shot them!"

[Balta1701]

And by the way, the justifiable force statute is premised on the fact that YOU (the shooter) are not doing something illegal. I'd say starting a fight is an illegal activity (battery) making this entire statute inapplicable. Since there's some pretty strong evidence out there that the dead guy was being followed and harassed, it's entirely proper (and reasonable) for a jury to conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl, engaged in criminal activity (battery) and was therefore not afforded the protection of the statute. That's why my point 2 comments ago about punching people in the face to justify killing doesn't work.

I don't know how you could conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl illegally beyond a reasonable doubt, not when he wqs also injured. He certainly created the circumstances, but can you tell me who made the first physical contact? Threw the first punch? Moved in a way that escalated things? If th standard is that you can shoot it you feel threatened, then all that matters is if you can prove the deceased took no aggressive acts, which you can't.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know how you could conclude that Zimmerman started the brawl illegally beyond a reasonable doubt, not when he wqs also injured. He certainly created the circumstances, but can you tell me who made the first physical contact? Threw the first punch? Moved in a way that escalated things? If th standard is that you can shoot it you feel threatened, then all that matters is if you can prove the deceased took no aggressive acts, which you can't.

 

All i'm saying is the guy should have been charged. Arrested at the minimum for a full investigation. Whether or not he can ultimately be found guilty given this defense is up to a jury. And its his burden to show it. I don't know why you're so hung up on him being hurt. People get in fights all the time and hurt each other. That doesn't always equate to fear of severe injury or death. The standard isn't shoot if you feel threatened. It's whether you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Plenty of people could choose not to believe that deadly force was warranted here because his "fear" wasn't reasonable given the testimony that he was potentially harassing/following the victim.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

All i'm saying is the guy should have been charged. Arrested at the minimum for a full investigation. Whether or not he can ultimately be found guilty given this defense is up to a jury. And its his burden to show it. I don't know why you're so hung up on him being hurt. People get in fights all the time and hurt each other. That doesn't always equate to fear of severe injury or death. The standard isn't shoot if you feel threatened. It's whether you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Plenty of people could choose not to believe that deadly force was warranted here because his "fear" wasn't reasonable given the testimony that he was potentially harassing/following the victim.

But the law itself says you can't arrest unless you're absolutely certain you can prove your case. The law is pretty clear that arrest is only appropriate in extreme circumstances.

[Texsox]

Police chief has temporarily resigned.

 

In my opinion this a terrible application of the law, and that begs the question, why are the police interpreting law? Generally the job of the police is to make an arrest and then for the district attorney to apply the law and determine whether the charges should be brought.

 

I still am unclear why a police officer would ever believe that were "prohibited" from making an arrest. Murder is a crime, self-defense, as most people would imagine, is a defense. Just because you have a defense, doesnt mean the police cant arrest you or that the DA cant try and convict you. Ultimately its the trier of fact who determines whether the defense should apply.

 

At the end of the day, I expect charges to be filed.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but how can the police not interpret the law? They have to arrest someone for something, that something would be their interpretation that a law was broken. The law seemingly gives people the right to defend themselves. The police would have to interpret which law to follow.

[Texsox]

Here is an interesting thought, what would the law be if Martin was armed also and during the fight Zimmerman was killed? I would hope the same non arrest. That would mean in this situation, where both seem to fear the other, that there could be a shootout in the streets with neither person charged.

 

Amazing.

[StrangeSox]

kill whitey.

[Jenksismyhero]

But the law itself says you can't arrest unless you're absolutely certain you can prove your case. The law is pretty clear that arrest is only appropriate in extreme circumstances.

 

What law says that? I find that incredibly hard to believe.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here is an interesting thought, what would the law be if Martin was armed also and during the fight Zimmerman was killed? I would hope the same non arrest. That would mean in this situation, where both seem to fear the other, that there could be a shootout in the streets with neither person charged.

 

Amazing.

 

That's the point of the statute - if someone comes at you with a gun, you should have every right to protect yourself if you reasonably believe its necessary to prevent serious harm or death.

 

BTW I read this morning that the county prosecutor has recused him/herself and now a state prosecutor is looking into it.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Geraldo Rivera using the "She was asking to be raped because of her outfit" excuse.

[StrangeSox]

That's the point of the statute - if someone comes at you with a gun, you should have every right to protect yourself if you reasonably believe its necessary to prevent serious harm or death.

 

No, that's not the point. You don't have to meet with equal force.

 

You can also shoot to kill if they are committing a "forcible felony," which I'm not sure if its clearly defined what that means.

[StrangeSox]

Geraldo Rivera using the "She was asking to be raped because of her outfit" excuse.

 

He's not the first.

 

To be fair to Geraldo, Treyvon was black. Doesn't everyone cross the street to avoid black youths?!

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

He's not the first.

 

To be fair to Geraldo, Treyvon was black. Doesn't everyone cross the street to avoid black youths?!

 

Or a Hispanic with a gun?

[Y2HH]

He's not the first.

 

To be fair to Geraldo, Treyvon was black. Doesn't everyone cross the street to avoid black youths?!

 

I think smart people cross the street to avoid *anyone* that looks like trouble. I don't care what color they are. I know this was in jest, but it's a good policy...if you are unsure, cross...if they cross after they see you cross, you're at least ready for what's coming versus being blindsided by surprise.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think I've ever crossed the street to avoid someone.

[Y2HH]

I don't think I've ever crossed the street to avoid someone.

 

It all depends on where you are. I don't do it in my own neighborhood, but I've been in neighborhoods where I have...

[Jenksismyhero]

No, that's not the point. You don't have to meet with equal force.

 

You can also shoot to kill if they are committing a "forcible felony," which I'm not sure if its clearly defined what that means.

 

Well sorry, i'm not going to chance my life if I feel that threatened based on whether SS agrees with me that I don't need to meet with equal force in a particular situation.

 

And i'm sure forcible felony has been defined somewhere in Florida law. You guys are just too anal about this stuff. There's the blogosphere/internet headline reading version of reality, and there's reality. Is this the most articulately drafted piece of legislation in history? No, but that's the nature of the law.

[iamshack]

Well sorry, i'm not going to chance my life if I feel that threatened based on whether SS agrees with me that I don't need to meet with equal force in a particular situation.

 

And i'm sure forcible felony has been defined somewhere in Florida law. You guys are just too anal about this stuff. There's the blogosphere/internet headline reading version of reality, and there's reality. Is this the most articulately drafted piece of legislation in history? No, but that's the nature of the law.

Isn't forcible felony probably defined in the definitions section of this particular law?