Trayvon Martin

[Texsox]

fwiw this is a pretty dumb move unless you're actually trained in hand-to-hand self defense. Much safer just to give over the wallet.

 

 

Yes it is, but that's what the public wanted imho. Turning the tables on the crooks. Why should law abiding victims run while criminals run free and harrass and attack them? It plays well with people who are tired of living in fear and who believe the law gives all the breaks to the criminal and none to the victim.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, there's the reasonable person standard to be met here.

The problem is that, more often than not, these scenarios have two witnesses, and one of them is dead.

 

I would guess though that if it's just people in an empty room and one person is dead and the other argues self-defense that a typical juror is going to be biased towards the shooter than the dead guy. Unless there's some evidence otherwise (like injury that isn't self-inflicted). But even then this situation is rare. In some of the cases you were talking about last week they were fights in bars and whatnot.

[Balta1701]

The bolded is simply not true. That is not, at all, what the law states. He could have been injured any number of ways. This is entirely you making a big leap.

 

And though I do not know the intricacies of Florida criminal law, I can certainly tell you that partaking in acts which lead to a confrontation can, and sometimes do, result in prosection and conviction of defendents for the consequences of those actions.

 

 

How do you know his injuries weren't caused by Martin's self-defense actions? Maybe Martin tried to defend himself, and in doing so, Zimmerman was injured? That does not give him the right to then shoot Martin. By that logic, I could create a situation by which I was legally allowed to shoot almost anyone merely by engaging them in some attack and sustaining injuries myself.

 

Jeesh, all they have to do is call Dexter. He'd figure it out in 3 minutes based on the blood spatter analysis.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

I'm just arguing the application of the law we've been discussing.

 

Balta seemed to imply that if Zimmerman was injured, he therefore had the right to shoot Martin because presumably he was acting in some form of self-defense.

 

I don't pretend to know what happened and I certainly have made no statements as to what I believe should happen to Zimmerman. I'm just debating the law as it would theoretically be applied.

 

 

Yeah, there's the reasonable person standard to be met here.

 

The problem is that, more often than not, these scenarios have two witnesses, and one of them is dead.

 

 

I would guess though that if it's just people in an empty room and one person is dead and the other argues self-defense that a typical juror is going to be biased towards the shooter than the dead guy. Unless there's some evidence otherwise (like injury that isn't self-inflicted). But even then this situation is rare. In some of the cases you were talking about last week they were fights in bars and whatnot.

Here's one of my key legal points.

 

Even if Martin's actions were self-defense...that does not mean that Zimmerman's response wasn't self-defense as well.

 

Whatever happened wound up injuring Zimmerman. Zimmerman was thus in a position where he had every rational, legal reason to believe that he was in more jeopardy if he didn't take the shot. He had no duty to withdraw...and as others have noted in this thread, once a confrontation was initiated...if he were to withdraw, that could have put him in greater jeopardy by the fact that he'd be turning his back. Even if Martin were also trying to withdraw...if Zimmerman attempted to let him flee he could have plenty of reason to think that would put him in further jeopardy because he could have attempted to obtain another weapon, whether it was just a rock to throw or more.

 

The only things that could plausibly be a crime here are the purported racial slur or the actual initiation of the physical confrontation. And if Martin threw the first punch at the guy stalking him, or escalated the situation in any way other than by basically lying on the ground the moment Zimmerman first approached him...without a duty to retreat, Zimmerman is justified in escalating in response.

[Balta1701]

First, it CAN be a crime under certain circumstances to specifically disobey a 911 operator. That can be interference with official acts.

Btw, after second though, I'd like to know any legitimate situation where this would be applied, because that would be the worst possible thing you could imagine for emergency response. The absolute last thing you want in any sort of emergency situation is a delay in calling 911. If you are calling 911 and you think you can intervene in a situation before the police can arrive, but you suspect that the 911 operator will tell you not to intervene and you could face charges if you didn't listen...you won't call 911.

 

Which is of course, what darn well might have happened here if there was a next time. He already grumbled that these guys always get away. Next time, if the 911 operator says don't intervene...then why restrict your rights by calling 911?

[StrangeSox]

FYI those "thug" facebook pictures of Martin that are floating around are not of the same Trayvon Martin.

 

http://www.streetwisepundit.com/wrong-tray...n-facebook.html

 

edit: breitbart's acolytes have sure been full of fail since his death

Edited March 26, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure that it matters, but someone's going to post it anyway.

Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school for marijuana when the unarmed teenager was shot to death by a neighborhood watch volunteer, a family spokesman said Monday.

 

Martin, 17, was suspended by Miami-Dade County schools because traces of marijuana were found in a plastic baggie in his book bag, family spokesman Ryan Julison said. Martin was shot Feb. 26 by George Zimmerman while he was visiting Sanford with his father.

 

"We maintain that regardless of the specific reason for the suspension, it's got nothing to do with the events that unfolded on Feb. 26," Julison said.

 

Also Monday, the state Department of Juvenile Justice confirmed that Martin does not have a juvenile offender record. The information came after a public records request by The Associated Press.

[StrangeSox]

Not any of them or not all of them?

 

I think I've seen two, neither of which are of the same kid.

[Balta1701]

What the voters seem to have wanted was . . .

 

A criminal in a hoodie confronts you demanding your wallet. You have an option to turn and run or, just like in the movies, you reach into your jeans to get your wallet and pull out a 9mm. Or you are the Korea War vet who instead of exiting the bus, you beat the crap out of the thug in a hoodie who is intimidating you.

 

What they received was . . .

 

Zimmerman

 

Be careful what you wish for.

Actually Tex...I think this is a lot closer to what the intent was. There's a reason why these laws were passed in a ton of states right after Katrina and the supposed looting that never really happened.

[iamshack]

Here's one of my key legal points.

 

Even if Martin's actions were self-defense...that does not mean that Zimmerman's response wasn't self-defense as well.

 

Whatever happened wound up injuring Zimmerman. Zimmerman was thus in a position where he had every rational, legal reason to believe that he was in more jeopardy if he didn't take the shot. He had no duty to withdraw...and as others have noted in this thread, once a confrontation was initiated...if he were to withdraw, that could have put him in greater jeopardy by the fact that he'd be turning his back. Even if Martin were also trying to withdraw...if Zimmerman attempted to let him flee he could have plenty of reason to think that would put him in further jeopardy because he could have attempted to obtain another weapon, whether it was just a rock to throw or more.

 

The only things that could plausibly be a crime here are the purported racial slur or the actual initiation of the physical confrontation. And if Martin threw the first punch at the guy stalking him, or escalated the situation in any way other than by basically lying on the ground the moment Zimmerman first approached him...without a duty to retreat, Zimmerman is justified in escalating in response.

I don't understand your rationale here.

 

The law does not extend to illegal acts. If Zimmerman initiated something that in the eyes of the law is an illegal act, he has no justification for escalating anything. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be arguing that someone can kill people if he has any right to believe his life is in danger. That is simply not true. One can not hold up a gas station and shoot the clerk if he attempts to defend himself with a weapon of some sort. The stand your ground law only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you're not committing a crime...Where things get really difficult is if Martin just became frightened and decided to attack Zimmerman without provocation.

 

Jenks, do you think if Zimmerman verbally threatened Martin as the initiating act in the sequence that he would still be able to utilize the SYG provision, or is he already engaged in an illegal act at that point?

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually Tex...I think this is a lot closer to what the intent was. There's a reason why these laws were passed in a ton of states right after Katrina and the supposed looting that never really happened.

 

never really happened? i remember watching the news live as it was happening.

[StrangeSox]

never really happened? i remember watching the news live as it was happening.

 

The extent to which it was covered on TV was seriously overblown. Also hilarious was which groups were "foraging for supplies" and which groups were called "looters."

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't understand your rationale here.

 

The law does not extend to illegal acts. If Zimmerman initiated something that in the eyes of the law is an illegal act, he has no justification for escalating anything. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be arguing that someone can kill people if he has any right to believe his life is in danger. That is simply not true. One can not hold up a gas station and shoot the clerk if he attempts to defend himself with a weapon of some sort. The stand your ground law only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you're not committing a crime...Where things get really difficult is if Martin just became frightened and decided to attack Zimmerman without provocation.

 

Jenks, do you think if Zimmerman verbally threatened Martin as the initiating act in the sequence that he would still be able to utilize the SYG provision, or is he already engaged in an illegal act at that point?

 

Nope, I think you've read the statute the way I do. It's a self-defense statute for a reason. You can't go looking for fights and then once the fight ensues claim that you were just acting in self defense. In fact, either the Illinois law or the Florida law expressly prohibits that sort of thing.

[Balta1701]

I don't understand your rationale here.

 

The law does not extend to illegal acts. If Zimmerman initiated something that in the eyes of the law is an illegal act, he has no justification for escalating anything. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be arguing that someone can kill people if he has any right to believe his life is in danger. That is simply not true. One can not hold up a gas station and shoot the clerk if he attempts to defend himself with a weapon of some sort. The stand your ground law only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you're not committing a crime...Where things get really difficult is if Martin just became frightened and decided to attack Zimmerman without provocation.

 

Jenks, do you think if Zimmerman verbally threatened Martin as the initiating act in the sequence that he would still be able to utilize the SYG provision, or is he already engaged in an illegal act at that point?

As I said in that post...the only thing that is a legitimate illegal act in the eyes of the state of Florida is the true initiation of the physical confrontation. If Zimmerman walked up to the kid and then hit him unprovoked, then Martin responded, then Zimmerman is the aggressor. If Martin were to be running down the street trying to get away from the guy in the truck who is chasing him, then turned and threw something or struck Zimmerman when he "Stopped to get out of his car and see what street he was on", then every step from that point is effectively ok under this premise where he is allowed to stand his ground.

 

Which means...the State of Florida would have to actively prove that Zimmerman began the physical confrontation with malice in order to charge him with anything. Basically, it has to establish that Martin, when first contronted by the guy in the truck, responded by laying down and doing nothing, not trying to get away, not becoming belligerent...just taking the instructions of the guy in the truck, and that Zimmerman then made a physical move on him anyway.

 

Outside of actual video coming to light, it seems like a near impossible case to make. Martin is alleged to have struck Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out of his truck. That's Martin escalating the event, and under stand your ground doctrine, he is allowed to respond.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure that it matters, but someone's going to post it anyway.

 

If this were Obama's son would he have brought pot to school?

[Jenksismyhero]

As I said in that post...the only thing that is a legitimate illegal act in the eyes of the state of Florida is the true initiation of the physical confrontation. If Zimmerman walked up to the kid and then hit him unprovoked, then Martin responded, then Zimmerman is the aggressor. If Martin were to be running down the street trying to get away from the guy in the truck who is chasing him, then turned and threw something or struck Zimmerman when he "Stopped to get out of his car and see what street he was on", then every step from that point is effectively ok under this premise where he is allowed to stand his ground.

 

Which means...the State of Florida would have to actively prove that Zimmerman began the physical confrontation with malice in order to charge him with anything. Basically, it has to establish that Martin, when first contronted by the guy in the truck, responded by laying down and doing nothing, not trying to get away, not becoming belligerent...just taking the instructions of the guy in the truck, and that Zimmerman then made a physical move on him anyway.

 

Outside of actual video coming to light, it seems like a near impossible case to make. Martin is alleged to have struck Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out of his truck. That's Martin escalating the event, and under stand your ground doctrine, he is allowed to respond.

 

You're either purposefully ignoring half the law or just not reading it properly. You're also ignoring all of the circumstantial evidence in this case that a jury will be provided.

 

The state has to prove nothing with regard to this statute, and certainly not that Zimmerman was acting with malice (has nothing to do with this case). It's all on him. HE has to prove that he felt it reasonably necessary to use deadly force to prevent serious injury or death. The state only has to prove that he killed Martin. I think a reasonable juror could find that it was NOT "reasonably necessary" for a guy to chase after someone (whether or not he initiated an actual fight or not) and shoot him.

 

You're parsing all this up into different acts and that's not how the law reads or how the law will be applied.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

It's all on him. HE has to prove that he felt it reasonably necessary to use deadly force to prevent serious injury or death.

And he has all of the evidence he needs. He was injured. Martin clearly struck him or struggled with him. Barring a whole lot stronger details coming out which would contradict his statements...he has more than enough evidence. This law has been applied in a lot weaker cases than this, bar fights and such, and still held.

[Y2HH]

The extent to which it was covered on TV was seriously overblown. Also hilarious was which groups were "foraging for supplies" and which groups were called "looters."

 

This is just hilarious. "Foraging for supplies?!". If said supplies weren't theirs, regardless of the surrounding circumstance, it's stealing/looting. I'm sure it was overblown by some, but it still happened, and any attempt to claim it didn't happen at all is revisionist history...not to mention ignorant.

[Balta1701]

Why do you think that one of the things the defense made sure was leaked was the supposed report about the 2 struggling on the ground?

 

Because as long as Martin took an aggressive action, then that wound justifies the fact that he would have felt justifiably that his health or property would have been in more danger if he didn't take the shot.

[Y2HH]

And he has all of the evidence he needs. He was injured. Martin clearly struck him or struggled with him. Barring a whole lot stronger details coming out which would contradict his statements...he has more than enough evidence. This law has been applied in a lot weaker cases than this, bar fights and such, and still held.

 

Supposedly eye witnesses say Martin struck him, but I'm not sure how accurate the report is or isn't.

[Balta1701]

Supposedly eye witnesses say Martin struck him, but I'm not sure how accurate the report is or isn't.

Clearly Martin had to strike Zimmerman at some point, Zimmerman wound up with an injury.

[StrangeSox]

. HE has to prove that he felt it reasonably necessary to use deadly force to prevent serious injury or death. The state only has to prove that he killed Martin. I think a reasonable juror could find that it was NOT "reasonably necessary" for a guy to chase after someone (whether or not he initiated an actual fight or not) and shoot him.

 

 

I don't think that's correct. The statute doesn't provide an affirmative defense but legal immunity. He is presumed to be acting in self-defense if he claims so unless the prosecutors can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not. The two legal-blog articles I posted a page or two ago went into this.

[Y2HH]

Clearly Martin had to strike Zimmerman at some point, Zimmerman wound up with an injury.

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-0...gated-community

 

Witnesses are saying Martin was the aggressor, not just that he struck him.

[StrangeSox]

This is just hilarious. "Foraging for supplies?!". If said supplies weren't theirs, regardless of the surrounding circumstance, it's stealing/looting. I'm sure it was overblown by some, but it still happened, and any attempt to claim it didn't happen at all is revisionist history...not to mention ignorant.

 

 

But the initial reports of violent looting and shootings were seriously overblown. Frontline went into this on their investigation into the Danzinger Bridge shootings.

[Balta1701]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-0...gated-community

 

Witnesses are saying Martin was the aggressor, not just that he struck him.

And frankly, if a guy was following me around in a truck yelling at me or something like that, and I tried and failed to outrun him, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do if he stopped.

[Jenksismyhero]

And he has all of the evidence he needs. He was injured. Martin clearly struck him or struggled with him. Barring a whole lot stronger details coming out which would contradict his statements...he has more than enough evidence. This law has been applied in a lot weaker cases than this, bar fights and such, and still held.

 

His injury means little given the other evidence that pretty firmly establishes that he was the aggressor. I think a reasonable juror (given what I've read up to this point) could (and probably would) find that it wasn't reasonable to shoot the kid given the circumstances.

 

Cite me these other weak cases. I'm guessing I can pretty easily draw distinctions. This case is a terrible example to get rid of the stand your ground laws because you're dealing with a shooter that pretty clearly took it too far.

 

Here's the use of force section for aggressors in Florida law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

 

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

Good luck to him proving any of that in this case. It's his word versus a dead kid who he was clearly going after.