• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as I know, the exact location of the shooting has not been released, but it appears to be about here which is not too far from the street.

As I review the picture again - I think I might have botched the location based on the car in the background over the reporters left shoulder. That might make the location to the SW of the link above, in between the houses on long oak way and retreat view circle. Probably not terribly important in the scheme of things, but I think having a good idea of where things happened is necessary to constructing a plausible scenario of what happened.
 
More homicides, or a change in classification of a similar number of homicides?

I would hate to think that prior to the law an average of 95 people a year might have been jailed for legitimately defending themselves...

That is what i am thinking as well, i can think of many situations in which folks could get prison under the old law, and not deserve it, that have now been classified ( as they should be) as not illegal.

Think of the following.

A gent starts to harass me on the street, maybe he is mugging me, maybe he just doesn't like the look of me. After a few minutes he is now in my face, threatening, swearing, etc. Under the old law, i would have to put myself in a tactically horrible situation, and attempt to run, thereby giving him a chance to attack me while i am not actively defending myself. But let's face it, at this point in the confrontation , no one is going to be thinking about the law, they are going to be thinking of their own safety.

So all of those people ( both those that end up killing the attacker, or simply striking first.) are going to be in some form of legal trouble, for simply trying to defend themselves.

Now i know there is going to be the line of argument "But not all instinces like that turn to violence. " , but that is not the issue. The aggressor in the situation, wants you to believe it will result in violence, because in a good portion of situations like this, it will. And if their intent is to make someone believe that, they know damn well how it could turn out. Don't want to take the chance of getting harmed, don't be an *******, plain and simple.

The law is not the issue, folks who like to pretend to be cops are the issue. If this law wasn't around, he could still get away with claiming self defense under the circumstances, self defense laws are flawed, but so are all laws, to blame them for the actions of some idiot, is unfair to the law itself.
 
When did the police cite the SYG section of the law as a reason for not arresting Zimmerman?


Not inconsistent at all, as this account has Martin making first contact.


And that is the crux of this case. And it is up to the prosecution to prove these things in the courtroom, it's not up to Zimmerman to prove his version.

Certainly, the result of this can be a man gets away with murder. But as I already mentioned earlier in this thread that's the way the playing field is tilted in our system. "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to wrongly convict one innocent man" as it's often said.

The police cite the law in one of their released statements, I believe.
 
You know, let's just assume for a moment that the Zimmerman attacked from the back bit is true.

Anyone have a problem seeing this situation arising?

Zimmerman and martin have a verbal, possibly shove including conflict. Eventually both parties realize it is going to just get crappier, and though both are still angry, they decide to disengage. But like most situations of this nature, good sense gets tossed to the wayside for being angry.

While not nessecarily a racist, Zimmerman knows a few phrases that are likely to sting Martin. Not trying to get martin to attack, but just being a **** he says a couple of them as he walks away.

Martin , being 17, and having had enough of this guy's **** at this point, does attack. In my experiences with encounters like this, it would probably be a push from behind , something to say " Listen, this is getting real at this point, either put up the dukes, or shut up and keep walking." , possibly with a colorful version of that phrase used as well.

Zimmerman takes his chance, que rest of the story.
 
The burden of proof in the courtroom is on the prosecution, and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This case won't be tried on this forum, or on facebook or twitter.

I'm pointing out the problems with charging him. This isn't the clear-cut case many here are making it out to be.

You're absolutely correct that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence. But the police wouldn't need a cut and dried case in order to charge Zimmerman. There's quite a lot that doesn't add up, and all a prosecutor would need is a prima facie case that Zimmerman aggressively attacked an unarmed teen rather than acting in self defense. Let a judge and jury exonerate him if his actions were legal (or if you want to get technical about it, if there's no proof that his actions weren't legal).

Whatever else happened, it seems to me the police hopelessly bungled the aftermath.
 
I haven't really been following this, so can someone quickly explain to me why the hell a guy who shot a kid isn't behind bars yet?
 
Except you used the "innocent until proven guilty" line in a way that implied that, a) it's unique to the US, and/or b) it justifies not asking too many questions if someone claims "self defence."

Nope. I responded to this:

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped.

Which is clearly asking about US law vs German law.

Indeed under FL law it appears that you cannot ask very many questions in a self defense case. You might not agree with that law, which is fine, but it says what it says.
 
I haven't really been following this, so can someone quickly explain to me why the hell a guy who shot a kid isn't behind bars yet?

He claimed self defense. As far as we know, the evidence at the scene supports him. Under FL law, he could not be detained or arrested.

A lot of speculation does not support him, and it may be accurate, but it carries no legal weight.
 
I haven't really been following this, so can someone quickly explain to me why the hell a guy who shot a kid isn't behind bars yet?

tl;dr:
Zimmerman claimed self defense, and at least one eyewitness who called 911 claimed he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman was yelling for help. The SPD believed Zimmerman, and do not appear to have done a stellar follow up investigation that led to a reason to arrest him.
 
It does seem odd to me that a claim of self defence immidiately curtails any serious investigation.

I would have thought any responsible person carrying a concealed firearm would be quite happy for there to be a fairly rigorous investigation (or even a cursory one) after they'd shot someone dead in self defence.
 
You are innocent until proven guilty in the UK, as well, but that wouldn't stop someone who claimed self-defence which resulted in a death being investigated to the minutest detail.

Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways. One guy had a gun and shot someone else. The other guy is dead and was unarmed.

If there's anything at all we KNOW about this case, it's that they can't both be innocent. Either one is a murderer, or the other was violent enough to be justifiably killed.
 
Do self-defense laws in Florida mean anyone claiming self-defense will not be detained in case of a murder? And is there no proportionality built into the self-defense laws?
 
Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways. One guy had a gun and shot someone else. The other guy is dead and was unarmed.

If there's anything at all we KNOW about this case, it's that they can't both be innocent. Either one is a murderer, or the other was violent enough to be justifiably killed.
Sure they can. leftysergeant even provided an example, albeit unwittingly.
 
Do self-defense laws in Florida mean anyone claiming self-defense will not be detained in case of a murder? And is there no proportionality built into the self-defense laws?
I don't think "proportionality" applies in the US in general wrt self defense.
 
He claimed self defense. As far as we know, the evidence at the scene supports him. Under FL law, he could not be detained or arrested.

A lot of speculation does not support him, and it may be accurate, but it carries no legal weight.

Well, no. I doubt very much there were no grounds to detain Zimmerman under FL law. Maybe there are no grounds to convict him of a crime, but that's a different matter.
 
Well, no. I doubt very much there were no grounds to detain Zimmerman under FL law. Maybe there are no grounds to convict him of a crime, but that's a different matter.
He was detained, he wasn't charged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom