[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
The problem I’ve got is that Zimmerman provoked the incident which led directly to the death of a human being.
[/QUOTE]
The incident that led directly to Martin’s death was the shooting, not the confrontation.
I am backing out of my space in the parking lot, and I don’t see you and hit your fender, denting it. You jump out of your car and shoot me. The incident that led directly to my being shot is not hitting your fender. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
According to the reports it was in a holster on his waist. Also while he did have a permit to carry I’m not sure it was concealed carry.
The only evidence we have that Trayvon either followed Zimmerman back to his car or that he “threw the first punch” was Zimmerman’s word and he’s not credible.
Jails are full of people convicted of murder who claimed “self-defense”.
We’re going to need more than just the word of a racist thug who shot a 17-year-old kid to death for walking while black.
My probably not popular opinion is that there should be consequences for killing someone even if it really was self-defense. I’m not talking death penalty, but something.
I get that if someone truly fears for his life, then killing someone else is a reasonable reaction. But I also feel that if you TRULY feared for your life, then you should be willing to exchange your survival for x months in the slammer.
If Zimmerman’s story is true, then Martin did commit a crime.
So when say, “As far as you can tell…” did you conclusively determine that Zimmerman’s story was false? How?
I am absolutely amazed at the people who are so confident that they know what happened here.
Many of those same people, I’d bet, also confident they knew what happened when those entitled jocks raped that poor woman in North Carolina.
And then when the story developed, and it turned out they didn’t… it wasn’t anyone’s fault.
How about simply waiting for the release of the police report, and not forming an opinion until then?
Why is that?
I would say it depends on what the provocation is. I can think of a lot of words and actions which are likely to provoke a strong negative response which should not necessarily waive the provoker’s right of self defense.
What should they have done which was not done? Is there some important witness who was not interviewed? (I don’t know the answer to this question.) Is there some important piece of evidence which was not looked at or tested? (Again, I don’t know the answer to this question.)
If that’s really what happened, then it seems like a real stretch to charge Zimmerman with anything.
No disagreement – the investigation needs to be complete.
The problem is – do you arrest Zimmerman in the meantime? And the answer to that is no, because Florida law says that a person who uses force as permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force - and that “criminal prosecution” means arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
So in order to arrest, the police have to have probable cause that Zimmerman’s use of force was unlawful. This is unlike traditional self-defense law, which requires that the accused raise self-defense during trial.
If true. We don’t know this, any more than we know anything else. For all we know, Treyvon didn’t follow anyone and was accosted by Zimmerman, grabbed or punched first and only used for to defend himself. We can’t state that Zimmerman’s version happened any more than we can state that it didn’t.
Which is why we don’t have a way to arrest Zimmerman.
Despite our fondness for excluded middles, it is quite possible to believe that Zimmerman was likely motivated by a racist assumption that a black kid minding his own business was Up To No Good, and that his reckless behavior at a minimum set events in motion that led to a kid’s needless death, and that he should absolutely face at least the possibility of charges based on whatever evidence exists and has yet to come forward—
AND to acknowledge that the media hype is outrageous and unhelpful as it frequently is, and that ridiculous things are being said by people on both sides, and yes that it’s probably a calculated move for Team Trayvon to parade photos of a beaming, aw-just-LOOK-at-that-face! 14-year-old kid while Team Zimmy evidently has nothing but a sad-sack mugshot of a doughy middle-aged loser, and to instinctively find something a bit tacky in Trayvon’s mom trying to trademark slogans with her son’s name for “future projects that will assist other families with similar tragedies”…
So yeah, there’s a middle there. It’s the big wide thing that a lot of people don’t seem to notice.
You are correct - this is not going to be very popular. Mostly because it is very unfair - why should an innocent person spend months in prison because he or she was attacked?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m pretty sure this started when Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…in order to arrest, the police have to have probable cause that Zimmerman’s use of force was unlawful. This is unlike traditional self-defense law, which requires that the accused raise self-defense during trial.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he was disputing that. Just the fact that the police had already written the case off as a justifiable homicide until the public outcry.
Not a good comparison, I think. The original incident in your analogy is an accident, not deliberate provocation. If you start a fight in a bar and accidentally kill the guy you’re fighting, you’re up for manslaughter. Well, The Idiot was out looking for trouble and found it. I suspect having that gun along made him more aggressive.
Black kid in a hoodie? Meh, I’d probably watch him more closely than most other folks. But follow him, demand to know what he’s doing there or touch him in any way? Aw, hell no.
Non snark question: Ignoring racism for a moment, if Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman’s face into the pavement past the point of death and then said that he was just standing his ground against someone following him with a gun against whom he felt threatened would the same defense work for him?
In other words is it self defense to defend yourself against the possibility of your opponent’s self defense?
Sure, if the jury thinks the other person initiated the use of force (by brandishing his weapon, for example), or that hypo-Trayvon’s use of force was the result of justifiable fear of injury.
Well, if I understand all this correctly, and I’m not at all sure that I do, the police investigation was done on the spot and lasted for two or three hours, if that. At the very least, the case should have been referred to the DA’s office. Any case involving violent death deserves more than that.
Hey guys, it’s me again. Thank you for fighting my ignorance since 1973. I now know that I was in fact a racist yesterday and all days prior. To this end, I have submitted myself to an accelerated schedule of electro shock therapy at the southern poverty law center’s liberal reeducation camp. Now that I am cured, I am almost ready to judge these men as a non-racist!
I feel conflicted though, as I was raised to believe criminal investigations should rely on factual evidence. Now I know we should only judge on the content of one’s character, but Al Sharpton and Martin’s parents and lawyer only seem to focus on the color of everyone’s skin. What should I do?
Dunno. Hang out with Shodan and build a 200-foot strawman?
Change your fucking screen name.
No, the law allows only the use of sufficient force to defend yourself or another. In other words, you use ony enough force to eliminate immediate danger. If you sucker punch someone who’s holding a knife on your wife and he runs away, you are not entitled to chase him down and continue beating him. And if it is not necessary to use deadly force, you are obligated not to use deadly force.
But IANAL, so check with an attorney before you make any plans. 