Trayvon Martin

[Jenksismyhero]

In that case, he at least has to make the effort to retreat and be able to establish that he did so. If he can't do that and he still takes the shot, then all of the other things which led up to him taking the shot suddenly are admissible in terms of defining whether Martin was also attempting to defend himself, when under the current law, they are not, because they aren't relevant to whether or not he could have reasonably felt threatened at the moment he took the shot.

 

Retreat? How can he retreat if he's got someone on top of him beating the crap out of him?

 

Given the facts of this case the requirement to retreat poses the exact same problems as the stand your ground law does. No one knows when the fight started or how it started. Zimmerman's story can be the exact same with the added caveat that he wasn't able to retreat because Martin jumped him and started wailing on him. He was lucky to have his concealed carry weapon on him and shoot him as he was on top of him.

[Y2HH]

Retreat? How can he retreat if he's got someone on top of him beating the crap out of him?

 

Given the facts of this case the requirement to retreat poses the exact same problems as the stand your ground law does. No one knows when the fight started or how it started. Zimmerman's story can be the exact same with the added caveat that he wasn't able to retreat because Martin jumped him and started wailing on him. He was lucky to have his concealed carry weapon on him and shoot him as he was on top of him.

 

He's already saying he WAS retreating/giving up the chase when the confrontation occurred.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sure we do. Zimmerman followed him around the neighborhood and chased him on foot. He doesn't do that, no one is dead.

 

So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation?

[Jenksismyhero]

Let's just ignore the fact Zimmerman got out of his car on his own, he wasn't pulled out or has he tried to claim that? Zimmerman initiated a confrontation and he got one, if you are being stalked by some nut who isn't a cop, you aren't going to defend yourself when cornered? The kid DID NOTHING WRONG but be a black kid with a hoodie. This case is a simple case of cold blooded murder complicated by a stupid vauge law.

 

we don't know if he didn't do anything wrong. all we know is that he tailed the guy and they ended up in a fight. that's the point. the moment when stand your ground applies or his duty to retreat arises is at a point where only he knows and the dead kid can't argue about it. So to say the law is stupid because the facts don't conveniently fit is dumb.

[Balta1701]

Retreat? How can he retreat if he's got someone on top of him beating the crap out of him?

 

Given the facts of this case the requirement to retreat poses the exact same problems as the stand your ground law does. No one knows when the fight started or how it started. Zimmerman's story can be the exact same with the added caveat that he wasn't able to retreat because Martin jumped him and started wailing on him. He was lucky to have his concealed carry weapon on him and shoot him as he was on top of him.

The deceased in this case was 150 lbs and 6'3". The shooter was reportedly over 200 lbs.

 

And anyway, if Martin was shot on top of Zimmerman, that would have been easily determined by Zimmerman being covered in blood from having a body land on top of him after being shot.

 

But that's beside the point. What the law ought to require is that you attempt to retreat or get out of a conflict if at all humanly possible. If it doesn't say that, then self-defense applies equally to both sides. Martin has every right to try to tackle and knock down a guy following him if he feels threatened because he also has no duty to retreat. If the kid were 1 year older he could have legally been carrying a gun and this could have been decided by who had the faster trigger finger, with the other one walking away scot-free. Martin responds physically to the guy following him (self-defense), Zimmerman attempts to respond physically or attempts to pull his weapon (self-defense), Martin pulls his weapon (self-defense) and now we have legalized the wild west. That is fully unacceptable and it takes no exaggeration to reach that point...that is what we actually know.

[Jenksismyhero]

I wish the law was clear that someone how performed the actions Zimmerman did was guilty of at least manslaughter for initiating the confrontation even if he may not have initiated physical contact.

 

So people never get into situations they might regret later? That should be held against them if a verbal spat turns into a life-threatening situation? They shouldn't be able to protect themselves?

[Balta1701]

So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation?

The right move, of course, is to either step between the adult and the child he's talking to (who presumably you actually would know otherwise you're just a stranger as well), or to call the police and allow them to handle the situation.

[StrangeSox]

So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation?

 

Well, you've already changed the scenario to turn it into creepy-dude-around-children, which isn't fair.

 

But no, you shouldn't exit your vehicle with a loaded firearm and confront the individual unless you see a crime being committed and are trained to handle such situations.

[StrangeSox]

So people never get into situations they might regret later? That should be held against them if a verbal spat turns into a life-threatening situation? They shouldn't be able to protect themselves?

 

If someone performs the actions Zimmerman did and it leads to them shooting someone to death, they shouldn't be given legal immunity.

[Jenksismyhero]

The deceased in this case was 150 lbs and 6'3". The shooter was reportedly over 200 lbs.

 

And anyway, if Martin was shot on top of Zimmerman, that would have been easily determined by Zimmerman being covered in blood from having a body land on top of him after being shot.

 

But that's beside the point. What the law ought to require is that you attempt to retreat or get out of a conflict if at all humanly possible. If it doesn't say that, then self-defense applies equally to both sides. Martin has every right to try to tackle and knock down a guy following him if he feels threatened because he also has no duty to retreat. If the kid were 1 year older he could have legally been carrying a gun and this could have been decided by who had the faster trigger finger, with the other one walking away scot-free. Martin responds physically to the guy following him (self-defense), Zimmerman attempts to respond physically or attempts to pull his weapon (self-defense), Martin pulls his weapon (self-defense) and now we have legalized the wild west. That is fully unacceptable and it takes no exaggeration to reach that point...that is what we actually know.

 

You're ignoring my point. I'm assuming he had the duty to retreat. But the same issues you bring up - about proving that he in fact tried to retreat - still ends up being a he said - he said between one person that's alive and another that's dead.

 

You clearly have an issue with (1) guns being allowed and (2) people's right to fight back. That's fine. But don't make this situation out to be a prime example of why stand your ground laws are terribly confusing as written.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, you've already changed the scenario to turn it into creepy-dude-around-children, which isn't fair.

 

But no, you shouldn't exit your vehicle with a loaded firearm and confront the individual unless you see a crime being committed and are trained to handle such situations.

 

How is that not fair? You don't think that happens?

 

Well, I disagree with the second part. No one has the obligation to do that, but if my kids are playing in a park I would hope that other parents would keep an eye on strange people and follow them if need be and confront them if need be.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

If someone performs the actions Zimmerman did and it leads to them shooting someone to death, they shouldn't be given legal immunity.

 

So tailing someone that you think is suspicious, justifiably or not, that results in a confrontation that might not have been expected, should end with me having no right to defend myself, with deadly force, if I feel it reasonably necessary to prevent my own demise? That seems absolutely ludicrous.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The right move, of course, is to either step between the adult and the child he's talking to (who presumably you actually would know otherwise you're just a stranger as well), or to call the police and allow them to handle the situation.

 

And what happens if he's some crazy guy that goes off and tries to kill you, when all you were doing was trying to get him away from a kid? According to SS since you confronted him instead of running away, you don't have immunity, so you need to make the conscious choice of (1) being beaten/killed or (2) shooting him with the looming possibility of going to jail for murder.

[StrangeSox]

How is that not fair? You don't think that happens?

 

Well, I disagree with the second part. No one has the obligation to do that, but if my kids are playing in a park I would hope that other parents would keep an eye on strange people and follow them if need be and confront them if need be.

 

I was talking about Zimmerman's actions and confronting Martin (who there was no reasonable suspicion of) and you brought in this argument about guys stalking around playgrounds. They are not the same thing.

 

And furthermore, no, I still don't think you should approach strangers who aren't committing any crimes with a loaded weapon. Notice that adding the qualifier "if need be" completely changes the scenario from what I was commenting on.

[StrangeSox]

And what happens if he's some crazy guy that goes off and tries to kill you, when all you were doing was trying to get him away from a kid? According to SS since you confronted him instead of running away, you don't have immunity, so you need to make the conscious choice of (1) being beaten/killed or (2) shooting him with the looming possibility of going to jail for murder.

 

Yeah, I said you need to run away as soon as you see someone suspicious.

 

Stop with this bad faith bulls***.

[Jenksismyhero]

I was talking about Zimmerman's actions and confronting Martin (who there was no reasonable suspicion of) and you brought in this argument about guys stalking around playgrounds. They are not the same thing.

 

And furthermore, no, I still don't think you should approach strangers who aren't committing any crimes with a loaded weapon. Notice that adding the qualifier "if need be" completely changes the scenario from what I was commenting on.

 

But who I consider to be a creep might just be some random middle aged guy. I could be stereotyping wrongly too.

 

I don't think being a racist or a bigot suddenly makes you less deserving of protection.

[Balta1701]

And what happens if he's some crazy guy that goes off and tries to kill you, when all you were doing was trying to get him away from a kid? According to SS since you confronted him instead of running away, you don't have immunity, so you need to make the conscious choice of (1) being beaten/killed or (2) shooting him with the looming possibility of going to jail for murder.

Well, first of all, it would be darn nice if that crazy guy couldn't get a gun. But we're pretty clear in this country that we want that guy armed too.

[StrangeSox]

So tailing someone that you think is suspicious, justifiably or not, that results in a confrontation that might not have been expected, should end with me having no right to defend myself, with deadly force, if I feel it reasonably necessary to prevent my own demise? That seems absolutely ludicrous.

 

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Martin was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious. No, I don't feel you should have a presumed self defense claim in that case.

 

Much as if you start a bar fight, start getting your ass kicked to the point that you reasonably fear death, you don't get a self-defense claim. FYI this exact scenario happened to a friend of a friend in Chicago and he was convicted of 2nd degree murder I believe.

[StrangeSox]

But who I consider to be a creep might just be some random middle aged guy. I could be stereotyping wrongly too.

 

I don't think being a racist or a bigot suddenly makes you less deserving of protection.

 

Thanks for refuting your own argument, I guess? That's another great reason why confronting people who aren't committing any crimes with loaded weapons is a dumb idea and should remove self-defense claims.

[Jenksismyhero]

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Martin was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious. No, I don't feel you should have a presumed self defense claim in that case.

 

Much as if you start a bar fight, start getting your ass kicked to the point that you reasonably fear death, you don't get a self-defense claim. FYI this exact scenario happened to a friend of a friend in Chicago and he was convicted of 2nd degree murder I believe.

 

And there's a law already on that, and it's the aggressor exception to all of this.

 

And did he "chase" him? Or did he follow him?

[StrangeSox]

And there's a law already on that, and it's the aggressor exception to all of this.

 

And did he "chase" him? Or did he follow him?

 

He was following him on foot.

 

The current law may or may not cover Zimmerman's actions based on what we know. Based on what we know, I think the laws should be written such that they would.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Im still not sure why as a society we want random people intervening in random events. For example:

 

No one has the obligation to do that, but if my kids are playing in a park I would hope that other parents would keep an eye on strange people and follow them if need be and confront them if need be.

 

Right and what if someone thinks YOU are the strange man, and see YOU with your kid and your kid is screaming because they dont want to leave the park. And they confront you, you tell them to mind their own business, continue to take your kid away and they shoot you because they believe you were kidnapping the child.

 

I dont believe citizens should take the law into their own hands, unless they absolutely know what is going on. IE If you know the kid and you know who is parent is, then you can intervene. But if they are random people, how the hell do you know what is going on.

 

Youre not going to convince me that people should be allowed to be armed and get in conflicts that they have no idea about, that is just not going to end well.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

He was following him on foot.

 

The current law may or may not cover Zimmerman's actions based on what we know. Based on what we know, I think the laws should be written such that they would.

 

See this is my problem. There's been this crazy outrage before the facts are even clear. You said chase, which would lead people to think that he was literally running him down, which would make the Martin-self defense claim much more believable. But if he's just walking? If he's just seeing if the guy is going to cause trouble? Yeah, it might be racist to see a black kid and assume he's up to no good, but there's no law against that. So because he was curious about what the kid was up to, and a confrontation ensued (cause unknown) he loses any right to claim his actions were in self defense?

 

I still think the guy should have been arrested and the investigation should have been more thorough. And there's enough circumstantial evidence (being reported anyway) that would lead me to believe the whole stand your ground exception doesn't apply here. I just don't get this outrage over a law that's not really that poorly written and that in 99% of other cases provided a more clear and concise method for determining if someone's self-defense killing was justifiable.

[Soxbadger]

I dont believe in C&C nor do I believe in the codification of stand your ground.

 

For me this is simply about using this event to get my agenda across.

 

I dont care if its white on white, black on black or alien on alien, you give me events that are going to make people question laws I disagree with, I am going to hammer on the absurdity of the law until the cows come home.

 

Self-Defense is already well established in common law, no need to expand it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Im still not sure why as a society we want random people intervening in random events. For example:

 

 

 

Right and what if someone thinks YOU are the strange man, and see YOU with your kid and your kid is screaming because they dont want to leave the park. And they confront you, you tell them to mind their own business, continue to take your kid away and they shoot you because they believe you were kidnapping the child.

 

I dont believe citizens should take the law into their own hands, unless they absolutely know what is going on. IE If you know the kid and you know who is parent is, then you can intervene. But if they are random people, how the hell do you know what is going on.

 

Youre not going to convince me that people should be allowed to be armed and get in conflicts that they have no idea about, that is just not going to end well.

 

They couldn't just shoot me for taking a kid. That's not putting their lives at risk as all of these laws talk about.