Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

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.

He was following him in his car first, the kid then got away, then Zimmerman got out of his car and managed to find him again. This is agreed to by both sides.

 

The kid has a guy suspiciously following him in his car, he thinks he loses him, then the guy finds him again and approaches him after getting out of his car. That's as good of a self defense case as any other you can make. Strike back kid, he's after you, either he's going to kidnap you or he's going to mug you.

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

Since he followed this kid around the neighborhood and approached him for no good reason, yeah, I think he should lose the right to claim self defense.

 

I don't want laws that encourage the actions Zimmerman took.

[Jenksismyhero]

He was following him in his car first, the kid then got away, then Zimmerman got out of his car and managed to find him again. This is agreed to by both sides.

 

The kid has a guy suspiciously following him in his car, he thinks he loses him, then the guy finds him again and approaches him after getting out of his car. That's as good of a self defense case as any other you can make. Strike back kid, he's after you, either he's going to kidnap you or he's going to mug you.

 

Oh please, that it is a stretch.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

kidnapping is a forcible felony. fire at will.

[StrangeSox]

Oh please, that it is a stretch.

 

No it isn't, that is what actually happened and no one disputes.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Jenks,

 

I believe you are incorrect.

 

From Florida:

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

Kidnapping is a forcible felony.

 

There if I believe force is necessary to prevent the kidnapping of another person, I can use deadly force.

 

That is right from the statute, which is why I created the fact pattern, explicitly based on what the law allows.

 

The law allows me to shoot someone if I think they are kidnapping someone.

[StrangeSox]

Airplane Piracy is also a forcible felony.

 

I'd like to know what that is.

[Balta1701]

Oh please, that it is a stretch.

Not in the least. Try to put yourself in that situation. I'd be scared sh*tless having some random dude in a pickup truck following me around for more than a few blocks, accelerating if I tried to run. At that point I'd try to hide, and if the guy got out of his car while I was trying to hide and he approached me without loudly and blatantly identifying himself and what his goals are, I've got the choice between trying to hit him first or having him find me while hiding. In the middle of a strange neighborhood where I don't know anyone.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not in the least. Try to put yourself in that situation. I'd be scared sh*tless having some random dude in a pickup truck following me around for more than a few blocks, accelerating if I tried to run. At that point I'd try to hide, and if the guy got out of his car while I was trying to hide and he approached me without loudly and blatantly identifying himself and what his goals are, I've got the choice between trying to hit him first or having him find me while hiding. In the middle of a strange neighborhood where I don't know anyone.

 

but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!!

[StrangeSox]

but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!!

 

I think we need to be clear when we're being descriptive of the situation that exists and the laws as they are and prescriptive.

 

But I think this flail acknowledges Balta's point.

[Balta1701]

but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!!

Pretty much exactly right. He ought to have been able to take one shot at the guy to get him away and then required by law to flee. But no, he has the right to stand his ground and confront his aggressor, and if his aggressor attempts to fight back he can use deadly force, including slamming his head into the ground.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

I believe you are incorrect.

 

From Florida:

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

Kidnapping is a forcible felony.

 

There if I believe force is necessary to prevent the kidnapping of another person, I can use deadly force.

 

That is right from the statute, which is why I created the fact pattern, explicitly based on what the law allows.

 

The law allows me to shoot someone if I think they are kidnapping someone.

 

It would have to be reasonable. Whipping out a gun on a playground (felony btw right?) and shooting me just for seeing me talk to a kid isn't going to fly as "reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Moreover you'd have to establish that you know I was about to commit a kidnapping. How are you going to establish that unless I scream "I'm kidnapping this kid and you can't stop me!"

[Jenksismyhero]

I think we need to be clear when we're being descriptive of the situation that exists and the laws as they are and prescriptive.

 

But I think this flail acknowledges Balta's point.

 

Please. Someone following you doesn't require that you automatically turn and defend yourself. You have no reasonable belief that they mean to do you ANY harm.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

What if your kid is yelling "hes kidnapping me".

 

Do I get to shoot first and ask questions later?

 

The law (imo) is terrible.

[Balta1701]

Does a racial slur really change anything if Martin was still the first one to use force?

Yeah, because then the shooting becomes legally a hate crime, and then he has to go up against the federal laws, which don't have this stand your ground provision in them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

What if your kid is yelling "hes kidnapping me".

 

Do I get to shoot first and ask questions later?

 

The law (imo) is terrible.

 

I would think without you attempting to verify the truth of that statement, it's not reasonable to believe what a kid screams, especially since i'm not going to pick him up and run away. I'm going to stand there and let him make a fool of himself and if someone asks questions I'll stick around to answer them.

 

My nephew (5) went to school with a cut on his face from falling on his bike. He told the teacher his mom took a knife to him (saw something on TV about it, thought it would be funny). Kids say the darndest things.

[Balta1701]

If the case turns out the way it's looking, the better way to put it would be that Martin would be alive today but for his decision to use force against Zimmerman. Or Martin would be alive today but for his suspension from school, etc.

So we should teach our kids to welcome being followed by strange men?

[StrangeSox]

It would have to be reasonable. Whipping out a gun on a playground (felony btw right?) and shooting me just for seeing me talk to a kid isn't going to fly as "reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Moreover you'd have to establish that you know I was about to commit a kidnapping. How are you going to establish that unless I scream "I'm kidnapping this kid and you can't stop me!"

 

Be consistent, you already established yourself that you were taking a kid.

 

 

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.

 

[StrangeSox]

If the case turns out the way it's looking, the better way to put it would be that Martin would be alive today but for his decision to use force against Zimmerman. Or Martin would be alive today but for his suspension from school, etc.

 

"The way it's looking" is still entirely based, of course, on Zimmerman's claims and contradicts what another witness (via phone) claims to have heard.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child.

 

/shrugs

 

The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it.

[GoodAsGould]

A little off topic but doesn't it seem that these new stories that go viral seemingly come from Florida more than any other state. Have this case, the Casey Anthony case, and the case a few years ago about who had custody to pull a woman off life support cant remember names. That's just off the top of my head too.

[StrangeSox]

I would think without you attempting to verify the truth of that statement, it's not reasonable to believe what a kid screams, especially since i'm not going to pick him up and run away. I'm going to stand there and let him make a fool of himself and if someone asks questions I'll stick around to answer them.

 

What you would do with the child isn't really the question. What someone might do is. You can't say "well I would act this way" and negate the entire hypothetical.

 

But if you reasonably believed that there was a kidnapping in progress, you'd be legally good to shoot to kill

 

My nephew (5) went to school with a cut on his face from falling on his bike. He told the teacher his mom took a knife to him (saw something on TV about it, thought it would be funny). Kids say the darndest things.

 

And the teacher is legally required to report that and others are legally required to investigate. Not sure what it really has to do with SYG laws, though!

[StrangeSox]

A little off topic but doesn't it seem that these new stories that go viral seemingly come from Florida more than any other state. Have this case, the Casey Anthony case, and the case a few years ago about who had custody to pull a woman off life support cant remember names. That's just off the top of my head too.

 

Terry Schaivo.

 

Jimmy Kimmel does or used to do a segment called "Germany or Florida"

[StrangeSox]

Jenks,

 

Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child.

 

/shrugs

 

The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it.

 

But if you legitimately see someone beating a child or raping someone, you should imo. It's a giant mess.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child.

 

/shrugs

 

The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it.

 

How would this be ANY different if this law didn't exist? You'd then rely upon case law which would have the exact same standards. This argument is dumb. As I've said before, the statute just sought to clarify the situation instead of relying on the 500 examples previously brought to court. I don't see how it's a bad thing, since either way we're going to be debating the particular facts of a situation to determine if the defense applies.