Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

So after 10 pages of my posting careful and factual explanations, complete with references about why Zimmerman's story did not add up, and pointing out the holes in his claim of self defense, and pointing out how the systme seemd to have dropped the ball up to this point, and lining to the new federal investigation...

I apologize but I've not seen these.

 

[crimresearch]

But his actions are clearly reckless no matter what he says. In most states there are concepts in the law known as manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In those instances you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you know that police are on their way and you have no reason to believe there is imminent danger, then you are clearly responsible for the actions that follow if you disregard the instructions. FWIW: I've not watched Nancy or Jack Ford. I've watched prosecutors and attys (yes I know Nancy was a prosecutor don't care) discuss SYG. You might be right but so far you are a minority of one.

Same answer to you. I've posted over, and over, and over, that what Zimmerman did failed on many levels. I've carefully explained *why* complete with legal cites.

And you think it's OK to come in here after 15 pages of posts and just make up a line of bull that I'm defending him?

I don't put people on ignore lightly, but this garbage is beyond aggravating.

 

[RandFan]

Same answer to you. I've posted over, and over, and over, that what Zimmerman did failed on many levels. I've carefully explained *why* complete with legal cites.

And you think it's OK to come in here after 10 pages of posts and just make up a line of bull that I'm defending him?

I apologized and explained that I came late to the party. There is no way I'm going to go through the entire thread. And FTR: I encounter this all of the time and I have a bit of patience. There is no reason to go off on people who come late to a thread. I didn't accuse you of defending him. I said that from what I had seen so far you are a minority of one in your opinion. So, could you dial down the temperature and have a bit of patience? You could always ignore people, right? Wouldn't that be better than attacking people?

 

[Gazpacho]

crim is just mapping out the strategies that would be involved on both sides should this case go to trial, something that I would hope that the Sanford DA office is also doing.

A prosecutor who goes to trial with a relatively weak case might have to drop other cases with stronger evidence to do so. Prosecutors have reason not to gamble (although sometimes they do).

 

[RandFan]

But his actions are clearly reckless no matter what he says. In most states there are concepts in the law known as manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In those instances you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you know that police are on their way and you have no reason to believe there is imminent danger, then you are clearly responsible for the actions that follow if you disregard the instructions. FWIW: I've not watched Nancy or Jack Ford. I've watched prosecutors and attys (yes I know Nancy was a prosecutor don't care) discuss SYG. You might be right but so far you are a minority of one.

For those who are not impatient, is there anything in my post that is wrong?

 

[crimresearch]

crim is just mapping out the strategies that would be involved on both sides should this case go to trial, something that I would hope that the Sanford DA office is also doing.

A prosecutor who goes to trial with a relatively weak case might have to drop other cases with stronger evidence to do so. Prosecutors have reason not to gamble (although sometimes they do).

Thank you.


I'm a firm believer in analyzing situations by looking at all available factors, and considering possiblilities in order of likelihood.

It seems ironic that in a skeptic's forum that approach is so often seen as an opportunity to assign a 'side' and insist that I must take it.

Apparently my sig file is inconceivable to some.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you.


I'm a firm believer in analyzing situations by looking at all available factors, and considering possiblilities in order of likelihood.

It seems ironic that in a skeptic's forum that approach is so often seen as an opportunity to assign a 'side' and insist that I must take it.

Apparently my sig file is inconceivable to some.

• I never accused you of taking a side.
• That you haven't taken a side does not mean that it is inappropriate to question your arguments, propositions and/or conclusions.

 

[RandFan]

crim is just mapping out the strategies that would be involved on both sides should this case go to trial, something that I would hope that the Sanford DA office is also doing.

A prosecutor who goes to trial with a relatively weak case might have to drop other cases with stronger evidence to do so. Prosecutors have reason not to gamble (although sometimes they do).

But crim takes direct issue with your claims about SYG.

 

[Gazpacho]

For those who are not impatient, is there anything in my post that is wrong?

Justifiable use of deadly force is a defense against any charge of homicide, not just murder. It is also an immunity from arrest, prosecution or civil action absent probable cause to think that the use was unjustified (such as a disputing eyewitness account). So to anyone thinking it should be "left up to a jury"—Florida law says you have to ante up to play.

 

[RandFan]

Justifiable use of deadly force is a defense against any charge of homicide, not just murder.

I don't believe that is true. Not sure where you get that. Then again, the devil might be in the use of your term "justifiable". If the defendant knows that a course of action will lead to deadly force being used then it's not justifiable even if it would have been otherwise. If I threaten to kill you if you don't fight me to the death, and you accept my challenge, and I kill you, is that justifiable? I doubt it's as simple as you suppose.

 

[Gazpacho]

But crim takes direct issue with your claims about SYG.

I think SYG is relevant in this case but as far as I know the same situation might have developed without it.

 

[RandFan]

I think SYG is relevant in this case but as far as I know the same situation might have developed without it.

Cool. It will be interesting to see how it develops. FTR: I came here to voice my opinion and get some information. It's unfortunate that crim was so upset by that. I agree with his sig file and mine is similar. I just wish he has a bit more patience as now it looks as if I'm on his ignore list. Oh well.

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't believe that is true. Not sure where you get that. Then again, the devil might be in the use of your term "justifiable". If the defendant knows that a course of action will lead to deadly force

If Zimmerman knew prior to chasing Martin that he would kill him, that would be murder outright. But the recordings (including "they always get away") don't prove that.

then it's not justifiable even if it would have been otherwise.

Nope. For example, someone who carries a gun for self defense is not obligated to detour around high-crime neighborhoods.

 

[RandFan]

If Zimmerman knew prior to chasing Martin that he would kill him, that would be murder outright. But the recordings (including "they always get away") don't prove that.

I don't buy that at all. I'm not talking about murder. I'm talking about manslaughter. If it's reasonable to assume that a situation could likely result in death and one recklessly pursues a course of action then it's manslaughter. That's not that hard to demonstrate in this case.

Nope. For example, someone who carries a gun for self defense is not obligated to detour around high-crime neighborhoods.

But if you know that an action will likely lead to death. If you are told that Bob is looking for you to kill you and you seek out Bob and kill him you are not reasonably protected by self defense.

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't believe that is true.

Here's the statute. Justifiability is defined in in prior sections. It's a general immunity, except when someone attacks a police officer. Not just murder or manslaughter, but any court action where the particular use of force is an element of liability.

 

[RandFan]

Here's the statute. Justifiability is defined in in prior sections. It's a general immunity, except when someone attacks a police officer. Not just murder or manslaughter, but any court action where the use of force is an element of liability.

Doesn't address my point at all.

If you know someone want to kill you is it okay to seek them out and kill them? No.

 

[RandFan]

Doesn't address my point at all.

If you know someone want to kill you is it okay to seek them out and kill them? No.

If there is no reason to chase after someone, and you were told not to, and it is reasonable for you to know that the encounter could end in death, is that okay? HELL NO!

Is that really difficult to understand? It's not okay to create a situation that will lead to the death of another even if that death results from self defense. Not now not ever, unless this SYG over rides all other legal precedent.

I would be interested to now what crim thinks but apparently he has removed himself from the discussion. I would have to wade through 15 pages of posts.

 

[Gazpacho]

Doesn't address my point at all.

I think it does. You claimed that SYG bars a prosecution for murder, but manslaughter can be pursued instead. You're mistaken.

If you know someone want to kill you is it okay to seek them out and kill them? No.

I don't know and I don't think speculating about it would illustrate anything about this case.

unless this SYG over rides all other legal precedent.

It overrides legal precedents because it's a change in the law.

I think you're again mixing up moral and legal issues. I won't disagree that the case is very disturbing morally. A black kid shot in a southern state without any evidence of wrongdoing on his part and the law protects his admitted killer. How could anyone not see the echoes of history? But cases aren't tried on moral merit.

 

[RandFan]

I think it does. You claimed that SYG bars a prosecution for murder, but manslaughter can be pursued instead. You're mistaken.

No. I make no claims about SYG. I honestly don't know and I have said as much. I'm talking about all other situations. You know, the ones that are reasonable and don't hand out licenses to kill people on the slim say so of the killer.

I don't know and I don't think speculating about it would illustrate anything about this case.

Then why respond to me as if you know? I don't get that. One minute you are mister expert about self defense and the next it's "well, uh, hmmm, I don't know".

Fine, thanks for nothing.

 

[RandFan]

It's not okay to create a situation that will likely lead to the death of another even if that death results from self defense.

This ISN'T speculation. Let me reiterate it.