Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a procedural consideration that applies to law enforcement. A person who is filmed live shooting up a school, is captured and confesses with a lawyer present remains procedurally innocent until the moment his guilty plea is officially entered in court.

That's fair. You did notice I struck though my comment though , right ?

 

[Alt+F4]

If this is true, then I can aggressively track, pursue and harass someone into a physical confrontation, then kill them, and as long as I have some scars and claim he attacked me first...someone has to prove the negative and find evidence that the scar came from him hitting me first instead of him defending himself from me, and if they don't I can walk away scot-free.

You don't need to have any physical injuries to commit a "justifiable" killing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. You just need a "reasonable" belief that lethal force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yup, I did some research and I was right that your claim about Zimmerman's legal situation is wrong.

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.
---
---
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

You don't get to chase and kill people then challenge anyone to prove the negative about your claim that he attacked you first.

Well, you gave me a scenario. It doesn't necessarily match the case at hand.

Check Florida's laws, particularly the law the police themselves cited (although I personally don't think it applies) as the reason for not arresting Zimmerman.

 

[EGarrett]

This is exactly the point I brought up a couple of pages ago, and was called a liar for suggesting Zimmerman was doing something he shouldn't have been doing.

For some reason, it's taken as a given that Zimmerman was perfectly justified in arming himself and following Martin, despite the fact that he did so in violation of his neighborhood watch rules and in contradiction to what the police advised.

Whatever may have happened during the actual altercation, there's no doubt that Zimmerman set the whole thing in motion the moment he decided to take a gun and "follow" someone who was otherwise minding his own business.

Absolutely. It's quite clear that George Zimmerman belongs in a holding cell right now trying to get in contact with some very good lawyers who will have a hard time keeping his ass out of a long prison sentence.

 

[quadraginta]

Basically, Zimmerman says that as he was walking back to his SUV, Martin approached him and asked why he was following him.

What happened to, 'Zimmerman said Martin came out of nowhere and jumped him from behind without provocation as he was walking back to his car.'?

 

[Chris L]

They can recommend any charge they want, but if they don't do a complete enough investigation to back up those charges, the SAO cannot do a damn thing about it.

"Here, here's the charges we suggest."

"You don't have enough evidence, we can't do anything"

"But we suggested a charge...."

"Correct, but your charge isn't supported......get more evidence...."

"Um......about that....."

Yeah, it's that simple.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that's how the trial is going to go, unless the police can find more to break down Zimmerman's story. As much as I think he should be held accountable for Martin's death, there may not be enough to get above the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level. I can see him being found guilty in a civil suit, but I'm not sure about a criminal case.

 

[EGarrett]

You don't need to have any physical injuries to commit a "justifiable" killing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. You just need a "reasonable" belief that lethal force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else.

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.
---
---
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

You don't get to chase and kill people then challenge anyone to prove the negative about your claim that he attacked you first.

Furthermore, the law you're referencing is a "Stand your ground law" not a "Seek and Destroy" law.

 

[leftysergeant]

You don't need to have any physical injuries to commit a "justifiable" killing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. You just need a "reasonable" belief that lethal force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else.

Which would justify Martin's attacking Z, since it would appear that Z was interdicting his route home for no apparent legitimate reason. Once he noticed the gun, Martin was justified in escalating the level of force.

At no time did Z have any legitimate reason for doing any of the crap he did, so it is really stretching SYG or any of the laws on self-defense to justify killing Martin.

 

[Checkmite]

That's fair. You did notice I struck though my comment though , right ?

I didn't. I use Tapatalk; to me your comment looks like this:

The "strike", "hilite", and a few other functions don't get parsed by Tapatalk so when I see brackets in a post I mentally just filter them out. My bad.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8151395&postcount=2946

That was your cue to clarify, not to continue posting as though my assumption was correct.

Okay.

A - I don't think Zimmerman had any reason to be suspicious of, or bother, Martin or follow Martin. Were I judging Zimmerman, I would count that as provocation.

B - It is within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman genuinely believed Martin was a suspicious person who was up to no good.

Given B, it's logical that Zimmerman would want to keep track of Martin and call the police. It's logical then, that Zimmerman might follow Martin, or attempt to keep him in sight, which might also be termed "following".

 

[Alt+F4]

You don't get to chase and kill people then challenge anyone to prove the negative about your claim that he attacked you first.

Furthermore, the law you're referencing is a "Stand your ground law" not a "Seek and Destroy" law.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Why did did the police think this was a "reasonable belief" of Zimmerman's?

 

[a_unique_person]

Soon we will hear that Martin had a Glock 17...

As a joke, that kinda falls flat.

 

[LTC8K6]

What happened to, 'Zimmerman said Martin came out of nowhere and jumped him from behind without provocation as he was walking back to his car.'?

I don't recall an account like that from Zimmerman.

 

[EGarrett]

Well, you gave me a scenario. It doesn't necessarily match the case at hand.

Check Florida's laws, particularly the law the police themselves cited (although I personally don't think it applies) as the reason for not arresting Zimmerman.

There's no scenario you were given that doesn't match the case and would mitigate this. The content of the 911 call alone establishes that Martin attempted to run away from him and Zimmerman pursued him. Let alone the statements that suggest he was in an aggressive emotional state. His ass belongs in a holding cell right now, and he should be thinking hard about how he's going to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Why did did the police think this was a "reasonable belief" of Zimmerman's?

They didn't.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's no scenario you were given that doesn't match the case and would mitigate this. The content of the 911 call alone establishes that Martin attempted to run away from him and Zimmerman pursued him. Let alone the statements that suggest he was in an aggressive emotional state. His ass belongs in a holding cell right now, and he should be thinking hard about how he's going to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.

Okay, but I am just telling you what the police gave as the reason for his being released.

Heck, I even said I didn't think it applied.

 

[Checkmite]

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.
---
---
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

You don't get to chase and kill people then challenge anyone to prove the negative about your claim that he attacked you first.

Furthermore, the law you're referencing is a "Stand your ground law" not a "Seek and Destroy" law.

That's a big problem. The original writer of the law himself says it was not meant to apply to situations like this where a guy pursues another into a situation where hostilities result.

But obviously the language of the law isn't clear enough on that point, since the AG seems to think the protections of the statute apply to Zimmerman in this situation. So the law needs to be changed.

Given his comments on the matter, the drafter of the law should be up for an amendment clarifying the circumstances in which the law applies. Whether he would participate in such a push, or whether he will instead defend it from what some will doubtless call an attempt to "weaken it", remains to be seen.

 

[EGarrett]

Which would justify Martin's attacking Z, since it would appear that Z was interdicting his route home for no apparent legitimate reason. Once he noticed the gun, Martin was justified in escalating the level of force.

At no time did Z have any legitimate reason for doing any of the crap he did, so it is really stretching SYG or any of the laws on self-defense to justify killing Martin.

 

[johnny karate]

Okay.

A - I don't think Zimmerman had any reason to be suspicious of, or bother, Martin or follow Martin. Were I judging Zimmerman, I would count that as provocation.

B - It is within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman genuinely believed Martin was a suspicious person who was up to no good.

Given B, it's logical that Zimmerman would want to keep track of Martin and call the police. It's logical then, that Zimmerman might follow Martin, or attempt to keep him in sight, which might also be termed "following".

Point B is irrelevant when judging Zimmerman's actions. I don't care what he "genuinely believed". I may "genuinely believe" my neighbors are Satanists practicing human sacrifice. That doesn't give me justification to burn their house down.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car like he knew he was supposed to. He behaved recklessly and irresponsibly, and as a result, someone died.

 

[LTC8K6]

As a joke, that kinda falls flat.

The Glock 17 is widely carried by police officers...