Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[joegrundman]

american prospect magazine has this article on the history of the "stand your ground" law and the results of it. it's pretty alarming reading!

http://prospect.org/article/history-...our-ground-law

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

From everything I've read about the incident so far says the guy has no case for being in reasonable fear for his life so a self defense law should not apply to this guy.

After all you don't look at the right to free speech because someone claims it after yelling fire in a crowded theater.

That's a good point, but I don't think it's really and apples to apples comparison. The law was the basis for why the guy was not charged. It's the defense he's standing by, whether or not the real and true facts of the matter bear that out. If the law was changed, then this whole thing would have been much less of an issue as he'd be in jail while evidence was collected against him. As it stands now, he's off scot free and there's not much anyone can do about it.

And regardless of if it's a true case of "stand your ground" or not, the law's in the spotlight. I think it's a bad law.

Originally Posted by joegrundman

american prospect magazine has this article on the history of the "stand your ground" law and the results of it. it's pretty alarming reading!

http://prospect.org/article/history-...our-ground-law

That's a very interesting article, and you're right, it's alarming to see how the original intent in English common law has been twisted and perverted.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think it's a bad law.

I disagree. We have a similar law here in Utah, which allows a citizen to come to the aid of another or to defend himself where life is threatened. We also are careful to make sure the person who uses such force has to justify his actions or suffer the consequences. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

That's a very interesting article, and you're right, it's alarming to see how the original intent in English common law has been twisted and perverted.

I found it a rather biased article, especially when the author quotes the Florida law and then ignores the fact that the law specifically uses the word "attacked".

"person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In the next phrase he quotes a part of a statute for his own agenda.

"A person who uses deadly force" is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

The Florida laws are much stricter than that, and very carefully defined.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.032

Finally, his "alarming" statement about the situation

"Stand your ground laws" have spread across states in the West and South.

is more alarmist than alarming. We've had these sorts of laws in Utah since, well, since Utah existed, and it has never escalated into anything worth panicking over, or even mentioning.

The last post on that site so far, from C Vekert, is the best part of the page. The Florida law in not unreasonable, as the unreasonable article is, and the only question here is whether it will be abused, as all laws may be.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

So you think that an overzealous gun toting man should walk free because there was an altercation (started by whom?) and that is that.What if Zimmerman started the altercation in that case the boy was within his right to fight back but oh he did not have a gun only his fists at most I would love to see a shot of Zimmermans face and body after they spoke with him does he have any sings of violent physical contact on him what about the boys body.How can you say for sure that Zimmerman did start the altercation and then pull a gun and shoot the boy when the boy was attempting to defend him self from Zimmerman?
It seems assumed that perhaps the boy started the altercation and got shot by Zimmerman what if Zimmerman started the altercation and the boy fought back and then got a gun pulled o him I think that might well explain why you can clearly hear a boy yelling out for help perhaps he stopped what ever action he was doing (regardless if he started the altercation) once Zimmerman drew his gun that really well explains why he is begging for someone to PLEASE HELP ME! anyone with half a brain can tell that is the voice of a young black male.If he stopped his actions yet Zimmerman still shot him that is 100% MURDER.

If Martin stopped what he was doing upon appearance of Zimmermans firearm then he was no longer an threat and then the law is not on the side of Zimmerman.If someone has time to say please help me then they are obviously not an imminent threat well then again they might be if someone does not what anyone else to witness clearly what is actually occurring.

I am just telling you that regardless of who started the trouble, the law protects Zimmerman from prosecution because he felt in danger since he was in an altercation.I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not allowing emotion etc to creep in.This is why the police and SAO did not file charges as they were going from the legal point of view, which is what they are supposed to do.Now, with all the mob anger out there, they are sending it to a grand jury and grand jury will most likely go with the law but if not, well then a trial will occur and a good lawyer could probably get him off.Again, speaking on the legal veracity of the case, not my opinion.

No law is perfect and will be circumvented or abused at times but stand your ground is a great law overall as it prevents the government from Monday morning quarterbacking people who are in dangerous situations and defend themselves without fear of being arrested and prosecuted.This law was enacted because dumb ass prosecutors were trying to send(and succeeding at times) people to prison for simply protecting themselves.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it has to be emphasized because it's the whole point of the story. The kid was shot for being black in the wrong part of town, period. He wasn't shot for trying to burglarize something, he wasn't shot because he was holding a gun. He was shot because, in the words of the shooter, "these *****'s always get away" and he was a "*******g coon."

Mookie, the "because he was black" is such a crap argument.I am so sick of the victim mentality people have when it comes to things like this.Until there is evidence to show this was racial, stop with that garbage because it is WRONG and does nothing but cause discontent.

Zimmerman is an overzealous, wannabe cop who screwed up big time but not fair to claim racism until there is REAL evidence to show this.The coon comment? Come on! I heard that, it was so garbled could not make out what he said, sounded more like static breathing to me.Sure, the Al Sharptons of the world will try to make a big deal out of that.Now, if some evidence surfaces and shows he says that often or is known for racial views, okay. Also, "they always get away" is not a racial comment.Fact is, a lot of criminals get away.Zimmerman was wrong to think Martin was a criminal, but he felt he possibly was and would get away before the police arrived.

Again, I am not a fan of Zimmerman but also not going to stand by while the ignorant masses try to form a type of lynch mob.Drop the victim mentality, it will help you get ahead.Listen to Clarence Thomas types of the world, not the Jesse Jacksons.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

blahblah

You've made such a consistent fool of yourself on these boards that it's not worth the wear on my keyboard to respond.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I disagree. We have a similar law here in Utah, which allows a citizen to come to the aid of another or to defend himself where life is threatened. We also are careful to make sure the person who uses such force has to justify his actions or suffer the consequences. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Well, before I get into anything, I'll start by saying I think Castle Doctrine is great. It's a wonderful thing. Someone breaking into my home is no doubt a threat to me and my property. I'm not looking for trouble, I'm just living in my house. You're damn right I'm gonna blow someone away that's in my house.

Buuuuuut....I think it's a real stretch to extend that to the street. How do you determine that the other guy is a threat to you. Is it a look? A word? What kind of verbal threat would need to be said in order to be justified in killing someone? "I'm gonna kill you."? "I'm gonna kick your tail?" "I hate you?" "I think you're a jerk"? It gets way too murkey. Plus, the other guy has just as much right to be out and about as you do. What gives you the right to initiate a confrontation and then kill the other guy because you felt your life was in danger after you were the one who initiated the whole thing and put your own life in danger in the first place? That doesn't seem right to me. It basically gives free reign for anyone to pick a fight and kill the other guy and get away with it. I think there's a real problem with that.

From everything I've read about the incident so far says the guy has no case for being in reasonable fear for his life so a self defense law should not apply to this guy.

August actually makes sense on occasion
Funnily enough the politician who dreamt up the law also says he doesn't see how it applies in this case.

Mookie, the "because he was black" is such a crap argument.I am so sick of the victim mentality people have when it comes to things like this.

The coon comment? Come on! I heard that, it was so garbled could not make out what he said, sounded more like static breathing to me.

Bubbles you are going out of your way to make a fool of yourself again
Just out of interest how many of zimmermans calls have you listened to?
do you notice any pattern?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am just telling you that regardless of who started the trouble, the law protects Zimmerman from prosecution because he felt in danger since he was in an altercation.I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not allowing emotion etc to creep in.This is why the police and SAO did not file charges as they were going from the legal point of view, which is what they are supposed to do.Now, with all the mob anger out there, they are sending it to a grand jury and grand jury will most likely go with the law but if not, well then a trial will occur and a good lawyer could probably get him off.Again, speaking on the legal veracity of the case, not my opinion.

No law is perfect and will be circumvented or abused at times but stand your ground is a great law overall as it prevents the government from Monday morning quarterbacking people who are in dangerous situations and defend themselves without fear of being arrested and prosecuted.This law was enacted because dumb ass prosecutors were trying to send(and succeeding at times) people to prison for simply protecting themselves.

Zimmerman claims to have been in an altercation how can we know for sure who started this altercation? Did Zimmerman did Martin start it? Assuming that Martin did Zimmerman must prove it how do when know for sure that Martin stopped his actions upon sight of Zimmermans firearm therefore if he ceased his actions he was no longer an immanent threat to Zimmerman.
How do we know for sure that Zimmerman himself did not start intently or not the altercation he might have appeared to Martin to be a threat or Zimmerman may have assaulted him allowing Martin the right to defend himself from harm which Zimmerman can lie and simply not say that he started the altercation and give himself justification to defend himself from harm even though he in fact was the aggressor.That seems possible seeing as a young males voice can be heard begging for help on 911 calls and then suddenly stops as soon as the gunshot is heard if that was Zimmerman he has a very strange vocal range as it is clear that he has a much deeper voice than the one heard on that 911 tape based on what you hear of Zimmermans voice on his own 911 call.If Zimmerman was such an outstanding watch man how could he not have seen Martin prior to the incident?He stopped stopped all these robberies (according to himself and those that believe him) and was always out and about according to most every resident of this gated community yet Zimmerman never noticed this kid staying and clearly then having a right to be on the property Zimmerman the neighborhood watch captain extraordinaire was so good at protecting his neighbors yet he finds one of them to be suspect and winds up shooting him crowning achievement indeed.

[Bilge_Rat]

This case is, of course, a tragedy, but before condemning the police, you have to take a good look at the florida act. The way it is drafted, it is very difficult to arrest and prosecute anyone who uses deadly force and then claims self-defence.

If you look at 776.012(1) and 776.013(3), Zimmerman only has to have a "reasonable belief" that he could suffer " great bodily harm" to justify the use of deadly force.

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

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or
permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 goes further and states that where the above facts exist, Zimmerman is immune from prosecution and cannot even be detained.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.


(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but considering Zimmerman's belief, however misguided, that Martin was about to commit a crime, it will be difficult for any prosecutor to show beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not have a "reasonable belief" that his life was in danger.

This law is really a defence attorney's dream come true.

[vienna]

Bubblehead Said:

Listen to Clarence Thomas types of the world, not the Jesse Jacksons.

Extremely difficult, if not impossible to do: Clarence Thomas has not asked a single question or posed a single issue during Supreme Court sessions in his last 6 years as an 'active' Justice. It appears his Supreme Court memoir will be a single page, double spaced paragraph, if not just a blank page...

Perhaps he adhere to the old admonition "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt"...

[August]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

[vienna]

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

The whole situation and argument in a nutshell, and, may I add, you don't usually, if ever, hear the aggressor calling 911 and begging for help...

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

He didn't stand his ground. He pursued the victim, against the express orders of the police I might add. Then once he cornered the kid he got out of his vehicle and advanced into the altercation. As far as I can tell at no time during the entire incident was Zimmerman in a defensive situation. He had the initiative throughout.

This. It's not often ill agree with August, but this is certainly one of those times where his thoughts mirror my own.

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

The whole situation and argument in a nutshell, and, may I add, you don't usually, if ever, hear the aggressor calling 911 and begging for help...

Another angle that could be considered is maybe he's really a wolf in sheeps clothing so to speak. Maybe he actually planned to kill the kid and just called 911 to establish a self defense argument. Sort of like how a parent who murders their kid, ditches the body, will then call 911 to report the mysterious disappearance of their child out of her crib by persons unknown.

After all he did ignore police instructions. Maybe a case can be made for premeditation?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

This. It's not often ill agree with August, but this is certainly one of those times where his thoughts mirror my own.

Agreed! August and I are often at loggerheads, but here we're in perfect agreement. When someone pursues the altercation, what gives them the right to shoot someone?