:rolleyes: And that goes double for the other posts along these same lines.
Look, it’s not OK to physically assault people and put them in a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. That’s a bad thing. Even if they do something you don’t like, such as follow you around a neighborhood or ask you what you are doing. That’s been the law for a long time and SYG didn’t change it. Your read of this situation and its implications is just completely irrational.
Ah, but is it exculpatory for killing the person that puts one in reasonable fear of great bodily harm? Because according to Bricker, a broken nose is great bodily harm. Assault doesn’t necessitate contact. So if I think the guy that’s about to take a swing at me could break my nose, is it reasonable to shoot him?
Does anyone here support Florida’s SYG law? Even as a lawyer ‘gun nut’ I think it’s a disaster.
Bricker is spot-on with his legal analysis.
Sometimes I wonder if you are really this dim or pretending to be. And sometimes I’m sure you’re not pretending.
On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman was placed in “investigative detention.”
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/police-man-neighborhood-watch-shoots-kills-teen-vi/nK8LR/
Sounds to me like he was “detained.” Does anyone know when Zimmerman was free to go on the night of the shooting?
The principle behind the law, if I understand it correctly, is that someone who is forced to kill someone in self defence is a victim of crime, not a criminal, and should be treated as such, is in my opinion sound. However, there are so many unintended consequences of the law* that it should be repealed as soon as possible. I’m not sure it would even be possible to create a law that would do this without the consequences.
I’m far from a gun nut, I live in a country with almost no legal private firearm ownership, and I’m quite glad about that. However, if that changed and guns were prevalent, I would own one, learn to use it, and if necessary I would use it.
It’s my opinion that, if Zimmerman’s story is true, he would be innocent without the SYG law, and that the only effect of SYG in this case is to indemnify him against civil action.
*I’m generously assuming the consequences are unintended.
While your read of the situation relies on the thoroughly rational scenario wherein Zimmerman (likely still panting from his foot chase) calmly approaches Martin and politely says “good day, kind sir! I wonder if I might have a moment of your time!” in response to which Martin immediately and without warning begins cracking his skull on the sidewalk.
And how do we know it went down that way, and didn’t involve Martin fearing for his life after being pursued by a strange creep with a handgun, who may have threatened Martin with said handgun or possibly attempted to physically stop him from leaving by grabbing his arm or the fabric of his menacing hoodie ? Well as luck would have it, we have a living witness who’s eager to testify that Martin attacked him without provocation! Let’s put a bow on this one, gentlemen! First round’s on me!
Wrong. That’s not my read at all. I take no position on what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.
From what I heard, it was 5 hours of interrogation.
We don’t know what happened. That’s the whole point, that’s why in the absence of any further evidence Zimmerman must be found not guilty. And that, really, is all that matters as far as this case is concerned.
If it makes you feel better, Zimmerman can approach Martin and say, “OK, boy, what kind of stuff you been stealin’ tonight?”
That doesn’t change the legal analysis one iota, and it removes the pleasantries you find so unlikely.
Terr, you practice and study, work hard, some day you’ll be as good at this arguing stuff as ol’ **Rand **here. We’re expecting *great *things. Well, we’re expecting things. Close enough!
If in fact he was detained, then the police have a problem.
They said they lacked probable cause to arrest him.
But the same probable cause was required to detain him.
So which is it?
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207442
"Seizures of persons come in two forms: investigative detentions, AKA “Terry stops,” which require reasonable suspicion, and arrests, which require probable cause. "
They go into more detail, but basically, since Zimmerman voluntarily (supposedly) went to the police station, the detention did not “mature” into an arrest.
He’s taken the first step of actually being able to form an argument. Sadly, some of our more senile and drug-addled dopers (ahem) can manage only snarkasm.
And as always, we’re ever so grateful you continue to pop in periodically and remind everyone, between sneers, that you have no opinion. A lesser man wouldn’t take the time to announce he has nothing to say, let alone provide regular non-progress reports.
Honest question: if evidence (let’s say a surprise cell phone video) were presented showing that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin to prevent him from leaving, does that affect Zimmerman’s defense? At what point is Martin permitted to defend himself from an assault by an armed stranger?
Well, that’s a whole nother kettle of piranha, isn’t it? Did Martin know Zimmerman was armed, where was Zimmerman carrying his weapon? Holstered? What? I had the impression it was holstered in the small of his back, but I can’t remember where I got that.
Because if Zimmerman made it clear he was armed, then that changes everything, doesn’t it? Or does it?
Just because I haven’t constructed my own personal narrative of what happened between Martin and Zimmerman doesn’t mean that I have no opinions on any issues being discussed or that I have nothing to say. Specifically, my opinion is that anyone who does construct their own personal narrative is on a fool’s errand and engaging in pointless mental masturbation.
Why would it? It’s legal for GZ to have been carrying a gun. That, in and of itself, is not license for someone to attack him.