Yeah, there’s never been a case where simply brandishing a wallet was enough to get anyone acquitted on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment.
<cough> Amadou Diallo <cough>
Absurd indeed!
& :mad:
CMC fnord!
I am sorry, at what point did I say that I was arguing for the defense? I am simply saying that we in the general public do not have all of the information the police have, therefore we should refrain from making assumptions about what may or may not have occurred until we do have all of those facts. Obviously the police felt that Zimmerman’s account of events held water, they must have their reasons. What you are saying, in effect, is that every unsubstantiated rumor you have heard in the media is the inarguable truth about what happened that night, which is not a good way to arrive at the truth.
And how is this even vaguely relevant to Kimmy_Gibbler’s statement that the average citizen has the right to punch someone in the face if they are simply running in his or her direction? The story you quoted involves 4 police officers who were attempting to arrest a serial rapist. Not really the same thing now is it?
Not too surprising, they don’t want to take the blame for the bullshit that you can apparently get away with due to their terrible law.
Yeah, I heard it.
You guys need to keep up on current events, as this case is getting more interesting by the hour.
Now we have a phone call from Trayvon Martin shortly before he was shot.
Oh, and the cops seem to have somehow misplaced the phone. Or they don’t seem to want anyone to see it, or something.
This forum is so desperate to fight the great racist menace that you’ll desperately seek to find it anywhere you can. That I’ve seen no one is being racist in this thread.
hahaha, nothing like black humor to lighten the mood :sarcasm:
But really now, if Zimmerman didn’t have injuries consistent with an assault he would have a hard time claiming self defense. There is a huge legal difference between defending yourself from a person that has already attacked you and defending yourself from someone who you think might attack you but who hasn’t already. If you can’t prove that the person you shot had committed a felony against you beforehand than you will have a hard time convincing anyone of your innocence.
I feel like we’re living in a John Grisham novel all of a sudden.
Because the injustice you are complaining about is that law enforcement and the State’s Attorney are being deliberative in making a decision. The “injustice” you are complaining about is that you think justice must be swift, that is essentially you seeking to deny Zimmerman his constitutional rights.
Trayvon Martin is irrelevant, the most important thing he did or will ever do is get shot by some loud mouth idiot. Our constitutional system is more important than one man, be it Martin or Zimmerman, and after hundreds of posts explaining the actual legal principles, and a very reasonable response from the State’s Attorney you guys are still insisting there is some foul play from the government here, it’s embarrassing. You’re acting like demanding law enforcement move at your pace, regardless of the consequences, is civic responsibility. It’s not, it’s an act of civic oppression.
Elections are supposed to be democratic, prosecutions are not. To be honest, and while it’s a total aside, prosecutors shouldn’t be elected at all. Neither should sheriffs.
I didn’t see this mentioned, but there is allegations that police tried to influence the account of one witness The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained – Mother Jones
I heard it too, but you know people are just going to say we imagined it. Or that it’s just the sound of his thighs rubbing together. Or something.
At no time has that been my claim, which is that a person being chased by a stranger may, without more,* repel the chase with non-deadly force.
Being chased is not the same thing as have someone run in your direction.
Nor do you need to be correct that the chaser meant you harm, you need only show that a reasonable person would similarly apprehend an imminent danger of a harmful or offensive bodily contact.
It is telling that you can only argue against the contentions you wish had been made, rather than any actual ones.
- I’d observe that a wallet-returner would ordinarily be expected to say something like “Hey, you dropped your wallet.” Perhaps we can make him mute in our hypothetical. No matter: so long as the fear was reasonable, our poor mute Boy Scout runs the risk of a knuckle sandwich.
It’s gone to a grand jury. That’s it. If the case as is weak as the cops pre-judged it to be from the start, then you have nothing to worry your pretty little head off about.
By your reaction, you’d think the state had started warming up the electric chair for this man. Get some perspective.
I’m checking my copy of the constitution but I’m pretty sure you can care about whatever you want, just as I can call you guys reactionary offenderati for it.
Trayvon Martin isn’t at danger of having an injustice committed against his person, being as his person is a rotting hunk of meat and bones lacking sentience or cognition.
Like I said, I can at least understand some level of outrage if someone meaningful had been shot and killed. But just a regular joe? How about people settle down and let the government actually do its job. I don’t know why people think it is appropriate to try and affect the process of criminal justice through mob intimidation tactics.
You have no evidence it was a foot chase. The cell phone call the girl reported even states Martin wasn’t running. Doesn’t sound like a foot chase to me.
OnePercent isn’t talking about evidence at trial, he’s saying that since the full investigation by the State is ongoing, with evidence still not available to the public we the public do not have any grounds to be jumping to any conclusions.
Yeah, if we watch this with rapt attention on CourtTV if it goes to trial and see every piece of evidence the jury sees and there is nothing at all to disprove the prosecution’s claim then OnePercent would be off base to say “maybe there is some evidence out there that would exonerate Zimmerman.”
Martin is a corpse, he has no rights as he is no longer a living human being. Martin can’t claim self defense under SYG because he’s not alive to press that claim. We will never know Martin’s side of the story, the only role of the State is to vet Zimmerman’s side of the story and decide if he has a valid self-defense claim under SYG or any other self-defense law be it general common law or otherwise. If so they would be derelict in their duties to prosecute him.
The first line of the Wikipedia article says that the Castle Doctrine applies to someone in their house.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.
I’ve been using the “Stand Your Ground” expression to apply to laws that say you can use deadly force against someone, without needing to retreat, outside your house. The Wikipedia page makes the same distinction, look at section 3:
3 State-by-state positions
3.1 States with a Stand-your-ground Law
3.2 States with a Castle Law
…
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
…
States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.
If you want to use different terms to differentiate them, fine by me, as long as we both understand what each other is trying to say.