I don’t think you can chase someone who is standing their ground, silly.
No. Zimmerman did not break any laws; Martin was not entitled to swing at him.
You pose a fascinating conundrum. Perhaps, and this is just off the top of my head, we might train and equip a group of people to investigate these “criminals” in the neighborhood and to act in the interest of public safety. We could even set up some kind of system to contact them and have them respond expeditiously.
Nah, that’ll never work.
Why not? Or, more specifically, what limits are there on Zimmerman’s actions before Martin is justified in defending himself? Can Zimmerman follow Martin, threaten him, show a gun, draw a gun? Can Zimmerman do those things if he claims they’re in response to Martin’s suspicious actions?
I don’t know if any of those things happened, but I’m not particularly comfortable with a legal framework in which two people can seemingly threaten each other, escalate a situation, and the survivor (whoever it is) can claim self defense.
Its very reassuring, knowing that no laws were broken. I feel better every time he tells me, that no laws were broken. How about you guys, you get that warm glow of legality?
And it’s so comforting to know that if someone shoves a gun in my face, I’m not allowed to defend myself.
You mean according to George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is the only person there when the confrontation between the two men escalated to a physical confrontation. Zimmerman claims obviously that Martin was the one the started it but he’s hardly a disinterested party and has already demonstrated a willingness to lie about that night.
Why the fuck are we re-hashing all the old arguments about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin? Or, to be more specific, why is the unhinged doorhinge bringing this up again, just to beat it more to death than it already is? (Any why is anyone else here rising to the bait to engage him? dnftt NE1?)
Zimmerman’s been in-and-out of the news for one stupid thing after another after another ever since then, and that’s why this thread keeps coming up again. The current cycle seems to be about him revenge porning and doxing his ex-gf. (He does seem to have a steadily growing harem of ex-gf’s to harass, doesn’t he.) So that’s what posters seem to want to talk about lately. doorhinge, go shit in your own pants for a while instead of doing it here.
What if he was afraid for his life, because he saw an angry man with a gun coming at him?
That one never seems to occur to people or be taken seriously. People who will swallow the “He was going for my gun!” line without so much as a raised eyebrow.
How do you know that Zimmerman wasn’t doing something that caused Martin to legitimately fear for his life?
For one thing, the Z was a boney fido member of his neighborhood watch group, so its not like he was just some self-appointed vigilante, or anything.
Second, he is relating Things As They Are. If you insist on saying “Nunh-UH!” to Things As They Are, then you are trying to change things. Which means the burden of proof is on you, and if you can’t prove it, he wins. Also, liberal hypocrisy.
And Obama. No, he’s old hat. How about, “And Hillary?”
Because that question evokes the fallacy of argument from ignorance. It’s for the proponent of any positive claim to adduce evidence of the truth of his claim. The burden does not fall on the person that denies the claim.
So I know Zimmerman wasn’t doing “something” because the evidence admitted against him did not support that claim.
(bolding mine)
You know this for a fact, counsellor? :dubious:
The contrary claim requires evidence.
That is, the default assumption for any person is that they have not committed a crime – it falls to the person claiming that a crime WAS committed to proffer the evidence.
I don’t think that is correct Bricker, Martin had no duty to retreat and was fully within his rights under the stand your ground law to engage Zimmerman.
Martin was peacefully walking through a neighborhood he had every right to be in. Zimmerman was following him. As understand it, this put Martin in fear for his safety and he ran. Zimmerman chased him. Martin could easily have reasonably believed that he needed to defend himself against an imminent use of unlawful force by Zimmerman. The guy was stalking him. I do want to say that I agree that Zimmerman should have gotten off under the circumstances, but if it had gone the other way and Martin had shot Zimmerman, he should have got off too. These stand you ground laws are stupid IMNSHO.
I certainly agree that the Florida version of “stand your ground,” is stupid.
But unfortunately, as a matter of law, someone merely following you cannot support the use of physical force – that is, contrary to your claim, the mere fact that Zimmerman was following Martin does not permit Martin to strike Zimmerman. The reasons were explained in great detail dozens of times in the many contemporaneous Zimmerman trial threads, but the short version is: following per se, as a matter of law does not trigger a reasonable apprehension of imminent physical harm. The person claiming fear of imminent physical harm would have to be able to articulate more specific indications of threat.
Incidentally, your use of “chased” is unclear. No evidence added at trial claimed that Zimmerman ran. Yet “chased,” following the claim that Martin ran, wrongly suggests that Zimmerman ran after Martin.
What if someone is stalking you, and you can see they have a gun, does that create a reasonable apprehension of physical harm?
I’d be freaked if I were being stalked (first in a slow driving car, then on foot) by a guy with a gun. If I had a gun of my own I’d consider pulling it.
What a silly thing to say! “Innocent until proven guilty” is the appropriate standard for a court of law, to be sure. But we are but a humble message board, hashing out the evidence and forming our opinions. We are not bound by the procedures and traditions of a court.
So how is that you are the one who gets to decide what the “default assumption” is to be? Will it be my turn next week?
But if the person is legally within his rights to carry a gun, how can you be so sure that you are in “imminent danger”? I’m reminded of GWB’s attempt to claim that we could no longer want until we were actually in “imminent danger” before acting.