-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Only if he feared imminent death or great bodily harm from Martin. Also, while the law doesn't specifically say he needed to be facing deadly force, the law uses those exact words to define deadly force. So it'd be an uphill battle to try to make an unarmed attack by Martin fit that description.
Stop this silly argument:
"As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense."
"Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people."
- Rep. Dennis Baxley was the author of Florida's law Castle Doctrine.
You can't provoke and shoot people then claim self defense. Why is this arguable..
MightyHealthy
Banned
One thing I keep thinking too...if a guy gets out of his vehicle to follow you, how likely are you going to run straight home, alerting a possible stalker to exactly where you live?
But I thought you could not arrest someone without charging them with a crime. Or if you take them into custody you can only hold them for 24 hours if you don't charge them. Is this true, or did I just learn this from procedural tv like CSI?
Like that doctor that killed Michael Jackson, he wasn't arrested right away. MJ died in June, 2009. The guy wasn't arrested until January or February of the next year. He was not arrested right away.
If the portrayal of Martin on top of Zimmerman is accurate, with his head being beaten against the sidewalk and Martin hitting him in the face, that may be achievable. It will depend on any additional eyewitnesses, pictures of Zimmerman and maybe statements from the EMT's that treated him.
Man I feel like quoting that with ever post I respond to.
MightyHealthy
Banned
He also didn't shoot Michael Jackson.
Devolution
Member
I was followed on foot in my neighborhood some years back, I ran up my block past my house, round the corner and down another street. Then peered up my street to see if he was still around.
I understand the initial frustration with the police investigation, but now with all this national attention they are going to go out of there way to charge him if possible. What is so terrible about going the route of a grand jury?
"Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people."
I think its working.
soundahfekz
Member
Clearly the writers and sponsors of the law have no say in how it is to be interpreted. While their opinion isn't the end all be all, it will be taken into great consideration when the federal investigators look to interpret it.
Do I really have to explain to you the difference between having a body laying on a street, and a medical examination, and witness testimony that leads to charges being made....?
Like I said, you think its ok to shoot someone, and go home with the weapon. Without an investigation, until the internet demands one.
Ok, just so I understand you. Shooting someone should result in an immediate arrest while the police investigate and a doctor overdosing someone should be allowed to go free for 8 months while the police investigates?
Have you actually read the statute? The two of you keep quoting this man, but he isn't correct. He may have intended the law to work this way, either before it was written or now that it's become politically beneficial, but that is not how it operates now. There are two specific exceptions where the initial aggressor can legally defend himself with deadly force. The final outcome of this will depend upon Zimmerman's classification of "initial aggressor" and, if so, whether or not the situation warranted either of those two very specific, explicit exceptions.
Baconsammy
Banned
Trayvon didn't kill Zimmerman. By Zimmermans own admission, he was stalking Trayvon. By Trayvon's own admission he felt as if he was being stalked. Now swap out Trayvon for a woman and she has every right to whip out a can of mace and blast Zimmerman with it because she felt her life was in danger by some guy that followed her in a car and then on foot. If the macing caused him to fall, smash his head on the sidewalk and die, she's not being charged for murder.
Clap clap clap. Very bright observation, and could possibly explain why Zimmerman told the police dispatchers repeatedly that Trayvon was not acting right.
Mammoth Jones
Member
And that's the problem. How the fuck is anyone suppose to know WHAT happened when the police have operated such a piss fucking poor (I would say biased) investigation since the start?
I mean, c'mon...drug test the dead black kid. Doesn't drug test Zimmerman. Runs a background check on the dead black kid. Doesn't run a background check on Zimmerman. Takes Zimmerman's account of what happens at absolute face value and goes so far as to attempt to correct witnesses that provide accounts that completely differ.
None of this sets off your "WTF" meter? Nothing? At all?
I'm not saying execute the guy, I'm saying there seems to be more than enough evidence that he should have been arrested at that point.
You need to google bail, like right now.
Police didn't do an autopsy of Michael jackson on the spot, CSI isn't real life.
Honestly, this is your argument.
This is your life.
We will see what turns up in the investigation. If he was on the ground, he would have had to show Martin while he was on top to constitute any kind of self defense. If they two men were standing at the time, then Zimmerman doesn't have a leg to stand on.
No, I don't. I already said they should have brought him in for questioning. But I also said that they cannot hold him for an indefinite time so it's better if the police does their due diligence and figures out what exactly to charge him with.
Standing when Martin was shot? If that's the case Zimmerman's story is clearly false and wouldn't support a claim of self defense.
This right here is what the law shouldn't exist. Since when do average citizens get to presume that someone is guilty or innocent? The cops can't do it but your self appointed neighborhood watch captain can take it upon himself to kill after pursuing. He was told outright to not pursue and continued. The guy had a bloodlust.
Its nonsense.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'll take the word of the guy that fucking wrote the florida castle doctrine law over random internet poster #239874293874293487293, that's for damned sure.
They didn't do anything. Thats why this thread is here.
Read it and tell me how you interpret the words. You can't argue the exceptions don't exist, they're right there.
This is what I found on google:
What trial? There is no trial in this case.
I think this guy should be charged with something. I'm not sure what though. But I don't think anyone should be arrested and held for months while the DA figures out if he is going to charge the suspect with anything.
empty vessel
Member
And if Zimmerman were the aggressor under law, he would be required to have used every reasonable means of escape before shooting. Just getting beaten, even to death, is not enough.
Now use neogafs search function to find who is asking for him to be detained for months without charges.
Since you can't..
You can find everyone here asking for an investigation, since there wasn't one. As they took his word for it and went home.
Now there actually is.
Devolution
Member
What the hell are you even arguing at this point? This case would have been buried if not for Trayvon's parents and social media bringing attention to the ineptitude of the Sanford PD and local justice department. How much time he's in the jailhouse is some random ass strawman you conjured up for no reason.
An exception could be satisfied simply if he lost Martin and turned to head back to his truck. In that scenario, Martin has returned to confront Zimmerman and re-engaged him.
Well since the police took him in for questioning, and he never went to the hospital, that's a pretty outside chance. If Martin beat him to an absolute bloody pulp that would be hard to reconcile with the statement of the witness who went outside after the shot, saw Zimmerman over Martin, and couldn't figure out that the two were fighting.
The stand your ground law specifically gives an out to aggressors who obviously try to disengage from a fight. There's a better than even chance that turning around satisfies that.
RustyNails
Member
So what's this deal with New Black Panthers party looking mean on TV and asking for bounty on Zimmerman? Why is Anderson Cooper interviewing these morons?
That aren't helping a damn thing.
Devolution
Member
If Martin beat him to a pulp, did the police report mention injuries?
For sure.
But as we all know, some times the way a law is written doesn't achieve it's intended result. I read that article someone linked about the guy shooting and killing the Iraq War veteran. And I'm sure the law wasn't written to protect the douche that shot him, but it sounds like he got away with it.
"Fear of deadly force or grievous bodily harm" is the key. It need not actually be carried out.
empty vessel
Member
No, that's not an exception to what I said, because what I said presumed Zimmerman was deemed the aggressor as a matter of law. The aggressor under law always has a duty to use every reasonable means of escape or to "indicate[] clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force." Turning one's back doesn't indicate anything clearly.
Would you say that stalking and subsequently getting out of your car and chasing someone falls under being the aggressor? Or is Martin the aggressor for fighting back after what Zimmerman did?
Baconsammy
Banned
Exactly. Trayvon wasn't the agressor. Zimmerman was. Trayvon was a kid that headed out to buy an iced tea and some Skittles and got stalked on his way home. He's the victim. How the hell Zimmerman hasn't at least been arrested for disobeying a police directive to stop stalking Trayvon, which in turn ended up with him murdering Trayvon is why so many people are mad. And do we know how Zimmerman wears his weapon? Is it out in the open? Was it possible that Trayvon saw a dude stalking him that also happened to be carrying a weapon?
We are on the same page here. I'm not sure if the internet outrage is what caused the police department to investigate (the cnn article didn't mention that). But yes, I agree. The police department needs to finish the investigation and charge him with something.
Its all been mentioned. This thread is a cesspool of dumb.
It is. It took a online petition to get them to do their job.
They let Zimmerman go home after following and shooting Trayvon to death.
Devolution
Member
Uh the Sanford Police shouldn't be touching anything at this point. I hope the FBI/FDJ is doing an independent one.
He had a black teen on him who out weight him by like negative 140 pounds, how would he not be in fear for his life? :/
If Zimmerman ran after Martin or otherwise threatened him and became the aggressor, the act of losing sight and attempting to return to his vehicle would likely satisfy one of the two exceptions under the law. At that point Martin would have had to confront Zimmerman again and re-engage him, which "undoes" the initial aggressor label.
Baconsammy
Banned
If you listen to the 911 call, Zimmerman mentions numerous times that Trayvon is reaching in his waistband and coming towards him.
Gotta love legal interpretations.
What is stopping him from saying he thought he was going to die, whether he actually thought that or not? If he was actually getting his head slammed into the ground it's reasonable for him to think he was going to die.
Zimmerman can approach a black teen armed, this is not against the law, but a black teen approaching Zimmerman with an Arizona Iced Tea? This is fucking criminal! :/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked