Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trayvon Martin

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Of course he was found not guilty. It was Florida. Look at Casey Anthony.

    Comment


    • JoeBob- you took that comment out of context.. I did not call you out as a racist, simply the comment you made as being a racist comment.. Where that idea came from could have been shaped by media with a racist point of view, or by friends you talked to with one, or it could have been formed in your own. To state you are racist I would have to line up a bunch of comments by you on this board that show you are always making racist statements that showed a pattern. But, not seeing the obvious in your statement when pointed out to you, but instead going on the defensive isn’t a very good sign..

      Personally I think the public is being too harsh on Paula Dean.. So she made some racist comments.. I think some of her sorrow is fake also.. But, hey she is from the south, she is an older lady.. Would she have made racist comments in her lifetime?.. She would be lying to say she didn’t. As for the whole wedding theme thing, I can see her romanticizing how things were from her memories, without looking at that time period from the blacks perspective when making the comment.. For her times were good, and the comment was made as the idea popped into her head, not after long thought and deliberation..

      I always remember my mother’s statement to me when I was shocked as a teen hearing a racial statement from her for the first time I could remember. “Yes, I do have racial thoughts. I grew up in a time period when that was the norm.. I have to work at it, be conscious of it, and try to curve it. I do that so that you and your sisters do not grow up with the same prejudices.. I never thought of my mother as a racists even after she uttered that comment, made that statement, and had a panic attack over my sister marrying a black man, which she then talked herself down from the ceiling and my sister’s husband never knew of her first reaction but always saw her as open and accepting.. Why did I never see her as a racist? Because she was aware of her tendencies and worked hard to change them.. I see Paula Dean as someone who had to struggle with the prejudices she was taught in her formative years, but if she worked to control her demons then you have to forgive her for a few slip-ups.

      Comment


      • rdclements - All that is true.. But there was enough doubt as to whether it was just pure stupidity on Zimmerman's part or some form of intent.. IHere are two scenerios..

        Two kids decide to jump of rocks into the water, and one hits rocks and dies, is the other kid at fault?. The surviving kid was the one who came up with the idea and talked the other one into it. In the end though both kids made a bad decision and one now is dead.

        A mother leaves her baby in the car on a hot day and goes into a building on an errand.. The baby overheats and dies..

        Are both of these people guilty of manslaughter? I would say the child would not be convicted and the mother would be. The question brought into this case was how much did Trayvon decide to do that may have aided in his death.. I don't believe Zimmerman when he says the kid jumped out of a bush and attacked him. But, even the friend who was on the phone with Trayvon showed he might have been the one to start conversation.. He was talking to her on the phone, then broke conversation with her and she heard him ask Zimmermon "Hey, why are you following me?" Question is did Zimmermon do anything that instigated the conversation that was physical or that was vocal that the friend did not hear through the phone. Zimmermon was in some sort of fight.. Started by Zimmermon or Trayvon??? Doesn't matter, defense used both to create reasonable doubt, that Trayvon may have made some poor decisions also that had he not, he may have lived. I agree, Zimmermon got off to lightly, but it is not hard to create reasonable doubt.

        Comment


        • Zimmerman decided to follow and confront Martin - in his own words, "This guy looks like he's up to no good". This was based on observing what Martin looked like. Martin had not been involved in any criminal activity. He was walking along, minding his own business. Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious.
          How are black teenage men supposed to walk so that they won't get shot?

          Comment


          • I agree with you on that account.. The question that was put in the jury's mind though was what did Martin do after he knew he was being followed, run to the safety of his home? No, this is confirmed.. Confront the guy and pick a fight with him and pummel him????????????? React in self defense and only fight back when he himself thought he had no other choice??????????????? When there is reasonable doubt then black or white, the ruling is for the defense.. The defense worked in enough reasonable doubt, as to what happened.. Was it Trayvon screaming for help or Zimmermon.. Myself, I think it was Trayvon, due to the screaming stopping when the gun was fired.. If Zimmermon was screaming for help, then even after shooting as far as I am concerned he would have continued to scream, "Help I need police", "Help, I need an ambulance", "Help, I need something".. At least one or two shots.. But, that is my opinion, with no proof, and others will equally argue that they think it was Zimmerman.. So who is right? Reasonable doubt for the Jury..

            I do hope they sue the guy, I think that is something they will win. He is not 100% innocent.. I doubt the jury let him off feeling he was 100% innocent, they just agreed there was too much reasonable doubt. He was found not guilty, he was not found innocent.

            Comment


            • jblake47
              jblake47 commented
              Editing a comment
              No one ever in court is ever innocent. Guilt is determined as having a degree of doubt. Innocence is determined by a level of doubt. All members of a jury must have absolutely no doubt before a person is deemed guilty. It was strange in this case that ALL the jury members had doubt. That's a very compelling statement made to the court. In the eyes of the law, no one else's opinion is valid.

            • moosetracker
              moosetracker commented
              Editing a comment
              Don't quite get you jblake, in a court case the jury must all come to a consensus, it is not a vote, and the majority wins. Therefore all must agree to the verdict. One person holding a different opinion means the jury stays out until that jury member either changes their opinion, or he changes the opinion of all the other jury members, or the decide it is a hung jury... That all jury members decided not guilty due to having doubts to his guilt is not a strange outcome at all.

              Also I wasn't implying there was such a thing as a verdict of innocent, not guilty or guilty.. Just that the whole trial both for and against Zimmerman was on speculation because there was no one who saw the whole thing who had a good view.. Partial viewings, bad lighting, interpretation of voices, someone hearing things over a phone but not seeing anything, and the phone cutting out..A physical fight no one knows who started, cries for help no one can say which one was crying for help. Then a lot of speculation one way or the other..

              I don’t see how any of the jury could have come to a concrete decision one way or the other on guilt or innocence. Just if there is doubt, then they have to side for the defense.

              Some guilty verdicts may have a level of doubt, but they have a lot of hard evidence to wash away the doubt. There really was no hard evidence on either side hear.. Some guilty verdicts the jury can be sure about their decision.. The Boston bomber is pleading innocent.. Not sure what his defense will be.. Insanity?? He feels he doesn’t have to abide by US Laws?? It wasn’t him in those videos, throwing bombs at the police, hijacking cars.. He just happened to get shot and fall into a boat wounded that had all this writing all over it as to why the Boston bombing took place.

          • Originally posted by rdclements View Post
            Zimmerman decided to follow and confront Martin - in his own words, "This guy looks like he's up to no good". This was based on observing what Martin looked like. Martin had not been involved in any criminal activity. He was walking along, minding his own business. Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious.
            How are black teenage men supposed to walk so that they won't get shot?
            Martin didn't get shot from walking around. He got shot from trying to beat somebody. If Martin had done what we tell every kindergarden kid to do--keep your hands to yourself, he would be alive, and Zimmerman would have a normal life.

            Comment


            • moosetracker
              moosetracker commented
              Editing a comment
              Or Martin was shot even though he tried to defend himself from a man with a gun.. You don't know that Martin started it perdidochas..Unfortunatly no one knows. Do you tell your kindergaden kids to keep their hands to themselves if some strange man tries to haul them into their car and kidnap them, or do you tell them to yell scream and fight for their lives. Keep your hands to yourself is only taught when the kid is poking at the other kid who is trying to ignore the instigator or when two kids are poking at each other.. And it is said to BOTH kids not just the black kid (or at least it should be said to both kids.).. It might be said a little more severly to the known instigator and that in this case would have been Zimmermon who should not have been stalking Martin.

            • Basementdweller
              Basementdweller commented
              Editing a comment
              Just as in kindergarten if zimmerman had listened to the authority figure, 911 dispatcher, he wouldn't have his life ruined.....

              If If If.......

          • Putting on my moderator hat here. From a long history of being a member here at Scouter.com, I know how the membership feels about editing and/or deleting posts. They don't like it. Neither do I. While we give a certain amount of leeway in the Politics and Issues forum, the Scout Oath and Law still apply. Do NOT call (or imply) anyone a racist, idiot or anything else unfriendly, uncourteous or unkind or you'll find your post edited or deleted or the thread locked.

            Comment


            • I believe that it is wrong and foolish to judge individuals based on race. As a southern white male, I do not have much experience being the recipient of racial or gender discrimination. At the same time, it is possible and probable that my judgement is influenced by race due to my heritage and life experience, even though I would prefer that it was not. I have been in situations where black people have accused me of being racist due to a decision that I had made. It is easy to excuse comments made in the heat of the moment. The fact is that there is racism in our country and accusing people of racism where it is not justified simply allows real racism to hide.

              Paula Deen continues to get pounded in the media because she admitted under oath to using racial language decades ago. An all white jury found Zimmerman not guilty after he killed a kid for being black. One part of the Zimmerman case that troubles me is the enthusiasm that some people on the right have shown over the verdict. A young man is dead, how is there anything to celebrate?

              Comment


              • Basementdweller
                Basementdweller commented
                Editing a comment
                I am guessin you have never sat in a waffle house and dennys were the white folks were served long before you........At one waffle house in Cincinnati my friends were served and received their bills before my food came.... I got up and went to walk out and was told if I did they would call the police on me......forget that I sat there for nearly an hour and watch my friends eat....

                Judging folks by race happens all the time.....

              • rdclements
                rdclements commented
                Editing a comment
                Yes, judging folks by race happens all the time. I try to be intentional to avoid making that error.
                The media reaction to the Paula Deen mess, and all the companies racing to dissociate from her, was an overreaction. It would have been more beneficial to acknowledge that Mrs. Deen recognizes that the racial attitudes that were common in certain places 20 years ago are not acceptable today.
                But here's the challenge: If it is offensive for a white woman to use certain racial terms, why is it acceptable (common) for a black rapper? To say that certain words are acceptable when spoken by one racial group but offensive from another is its own form of racism.

              • packsaddle
                packsaddle commented
                Editing a comment
                Basementdweller, you just reminded me of some terrible things I've witnessed. You're right.
                Last edited by packsaddle; 07-16-2013, 09:25 PM.

            • Originally posted by perdidochas View Post
              Originally posted by rdclements View Post
              Zimmerman decided to follow and confront Martin - in his own words, "This guy looks like he's up to no good". This was based on observing what Martin looked like. Martin had not been involved in any criminal activity. He was walking along, minding his own business. Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious.
              How are black teenage men supposed to walk so that they won't get shot?
              Martin didn't get shot from walking around. He got shot from trying to beat somebody. If Martin had done what we tell every kindergarden kid to do--keep your hands to yourself, he would be alive, and Zimmerman would have a normal life.
              The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something.

              Martin got shot from beating on Zimmerman. Yes, ZImmerman asked him what he was doing. That's his right. Martin should have said, I'm going back to my Dad's house, and walked off. I do agree that Zimmerman probably did the wrong thing by following Martin, but the other side is that his neighborhood had been burglarized several times by young black men. I understand his view. I feel that way every time I see somebody I don't know walking through my neighborhood. I do carefully look at them, in case something does happen. It's part of being prepared.

              Comment


              • perdidochas - "The evidence points towards my view of the story, or more on a legal standpoint, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. WIth our legal system, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did something. Defendants are not required to prove that they didn't do something. "

                Perhaps in the media you watch it may seem to you there was more evidence for Zimmermon.. The media took sides and favored only showing what pointed out their theory.. But, no you side held no better evidence.. All you had was Zimmermans word, which he did not want to get on the stand and restate under oath, so he just let videos play out, and those videos held a lot of lies that were proved false.. So it left questions as to if anything was the truth.. You couldn't get the other side of the story as Martin lay dead.. All other accounts were guesswork, or seeing a part of the fight from a distance in the dark, or listening in on the fight.. No one SAW who started it..

                Yes there is reasonable doubt as to who started it first.. But, evidence does not point towards your view, no more then to the other view.. It is just that with reasonable doubt as to who is telling the truth, the outcome by rules of the court favored the side you were rooting for. Having reasonable doubt does not mean he had more or better evidence to convince anyone of anything that he said.

                Why is it Zimmermans right to stop a total stranger and ask them what they are doing?.. He wasn't the police, he didn't even identify himself as neighborhood watch. He just stalked someone for a while make him feel nervous, then without giving any reason demanded Martin to explain himself.. And his neighborhood may have been burglarized, but there is no proof it was by young black men except for in Zimmermans mind, as evidenced by the fact that he only called the police if it was a black man (or men) walking in his neighborhood..

                Comment


                • Pack18Alex
                  Pack18Alex commented
                  Editing a comment
                  "Now put Travon with the gun and Zimmerman with the skittles and ice tea.. Ask if Trayvon would have gotten off with reasonable doubt."

                  Probably never goes to trial. The police and prosecutors haven't liked bringing ambiguous shoot out issues to trial since Stand Your Ground, too hard to prove. Hence the initial decision not to prosecute the latino man in Seminole County Florida for shooting the unknown black teenager. Remember, this was a SMALL gated community, nobody thought to ask the neighbors if the deceased lived there because they knew all the residents and he wasn't one. As far as the police were concerned at the time, George Zimmerman found one of the burglars, caught up with him, and shot him in self defense.

                  When Al Sharpton got hold of the story and the German/Jewish sounding name, he got a national outcry and thought he had ideally a fresh pogrom against the Jews at best, and a chance to stoke racial flames at worst. The media held out to the nonsensical "white Hispanic" idea to cover for the fact that they were told they had a white man shoots black teenager story in the deep south, when they had a fight turned lethal between a troubled black teenager from Miami and a local latino neighborhood watchman who was well loved by many of his neighbors for trying to help.

                  Until this became a news story, the police saw an injured guy with a gun and the teenager dead, investigated, talked to witnesses, and concluded self defense. The idea that latinos are given some sort of racial privilege in Seminole County Florida is absolutely farcical.

                • packsaddle
                  packsaddle commented
                  Editing a comment
                  True enough about that law. 'Stand your ground' is practically a license to kill...as long as you make sure you do kill. The lesson here is to make absolutely sure of your deadly aim.

                • Pack18Alex
                  Pack18Alex commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Yes and no... There are definitely abuses of the law, but most of the abuses don't really concern the government. Sure plenty of gang fights get claims under stand your ground, but the powers that be are generally okay with them killing each other anyway.

                  Prior to the Castle Doctrine being codified, Florida had a mess of crime and lawsuits in the 1980s. Burglars falling through skylights and suing homeowners, tripping on pools, fences, etc., during break-ins and suing. Homeowners getting caught up in urban violence spreading, etc., so the legislature codified the castle doctrine (which evolved from common law, but shut down the civil avenue)... Prior to this, there was a dispute between the castle doctrine to defend your home and the duty to retreat. With castle doctrine codified as carrying the day, this issue went away.

                  With the success there, it was expanded out to a general removal of the duty to retreat. The media has played it out as a license to kill, but that's not quite right, you need to have "reasonably feared for your life." This does have the quirky side effect of a dangerous fight escalating to the right to kill in self defense, but only if the fight is reasonably seen as lethal. There is an exception if you broke the law in creating the situation, BTW, it didn't apply in this case because while getting out of the car and pursuing might have seemed dumb, it didn't break a law, so it wasn't allowed into the jury instructions.

                  Prior to this, self defense was VERY hard to use because you had to defend yourself in a split second decision, then the prosecutor could craft all sorts of "what-if" scenarios to suggest that you failed to retreat and therefore were guilty. If you think that this prior state of affairs was good for minorities, ask yourself who was more likely to have a public defender and who was more likely to bring in expert testimony about the likelihood of retreat.

                  George Zimmerman did not claim Stand Your Ground, since his claim was that he was on the ground, there was no option to retreat, so it was not relevant to the situation (but will be used in a potential civil suit for dismissal). The media drummed it up because they hate Stand Your Ground.

                  The codification of Castle Doctrine was to protect home owners. It has had tragic consequences at times, but it has made home owners feel more secure in their home and our crime rates have fallen. A few freaky stories have come out of Stand Your Ground, but crime rates are falling and the law is generally popular here, especially as budget cuts have resulted in dangerously long response times from local police.

                  One thing to keep in mind is that we are a bilingual "border" state (albeit with a naval border) with a large undocumented population, a massive criminal underground (Miami Vice was a dramatization of a real problem), and a ton of problems related to rapid growth. We have unique problems here, but in general, few of our gun deaths or violent crimes are attributed to concealed weapon permit holders OR legal gun owners in general. Not none, but few, most of our problems are with illegal guns in lawless areas. Concealed Permits, Castle Doctrine, and Stand Your Ground are extremely popular outside of liberal enclaves because there are seen as protecting the legal citizens from the criminal element.

                  The media wants to paint race as this big issue in Florida, but when you get away from the nonsense, race isn't so straight-forward here. Our Latinos aren't some oppressed minority, former Governor Bush was married to a Latina, Miami's Cuban population is extremely powerful (and conservative), etc. Our urban poor in metropolitan areas are similar to urban poor elsewhere, but we have a TON of people that are classified on the census as black but aren't culturally "African American," they are first/second generation immigrants from the Caribbean Islands, and their culture (and cuisine) is totally different from the rest of the black population.

                  We might seem like a freaky state by the news media, and we have plenty of oddities, but we're a unique state with it's own unique problem. Every state with a large undocumented population is struggling with the criminal element. Most immigrants are hard working contributors to society (documented or not), but citizen criminals have a paper trail to catch and something to lose, undocumented immigrants don't legally exist and therefore are nearly impossible to catch. That's why self defense becomes such a critical issue in states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida. It's easy to point fingers at the "redneck racist southerners" but the situation is considerably more complicated that it is elsewhere, including non-border southern states.

                  Don't believe the media caricature, Trayvon Martin was failed by the disaster that is Miami Dade Public Schools long before the petty crimes he got involved with got him suspended and on an ill-fated trip to Sanford, FL. You saw it in his 19 year old friend that is a senior in high school and can't read cursive writing at all, and these were people with hard working parents involved in their children's lives.

                  However, the lesson from these cases is: if your life is really in jeopardy, shoot to kill, and sort out the proof in court, you have a very fair chance at defending yourself in court. If your life is NOT in jeopardy, do NOT pull a gun at all, you will spend 20 years in prison. In theory, this makes perfect sense, in practice, it probably pays to be able to afford a good attorney.
                  Last edited by Pack18Alex; 07-17-2013, 12:13 AM. Reason: A few bad auto-corrects.

              • An all white jury found Zimmerman not guilty after he killed a kid for being black.
                I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black.



                I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.



                There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by acco40 View Post
                  An all white jury found Zimmerman not guilty after he killed a kid for being black.
                  I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black.



                  I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.



                  There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force?

                  I do pretty much agree that Zimmerman acted improperly, but not illegally. It would have been better for all concerned, if he had stayed in his vehicle. That said, it's easy to say that in hindsight, and not living in a neighborhood that has been burglarized several times.

                  Comment


                  • Renax127
                    Renax127 commented
                    Editing a comment
                    This case had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. Zimmerman did not use the STG in his defense. They argued strict Self Defense.

                  • packsaddle
                    packsaddle commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Renax127, The instructions to the jury included instructions about SYG. The jurors who have come forward afterwards have disagreed with you.

                  • Peregrinator
                    Peregrinator commented
                    Editing a comment
                    packsaddle, the instructions to the jury contained a lot of stuff that simply did not apply to the case. SYG is part of the standard jury instruction where the defendant claims self-defense. See the addendum near the bottom of the following article:
                    http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/so...till-has-nothi

                    The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.
                    Hope this helps.

                • It is always interesting to note that any situation one finds oneself in is rather "fluid". Things change and they change quickly. A police officer responding to a dispute will testify this. A man and woman are arguing and the police are called. Surely the officer does not approach the scene with a gun drawn. However, if things turn bad, there might be the need for the officer to not only defend one or the other parties, but also himself/herself and they need to draw their weapon.

                  It is irrelevant how the situation started, it is only relevant how the situation unfolded and eventually ended. I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman pulled out his gun until after he was being actively attacked. Could things have been different so as to not have the situation escalate to self defense? Maybe, no one but Zimmerman knows for sure. Did Zimmerman draw his gun before he accosted Martin? No evidence of that, and that would be appropriate for any law officer not walking into a situation drawing his gun prematurely and escalating the situation. It would seem that the situation deteriorated and unfortunate circumstances went from confrontation to self defense. Did Martin confront Zimmerman or was it the other way around? We don't know. Zimmerman was judged only on the end results of the situation, and it was deemed to be self-defense.

                  I would be concerned if Zimmerman did not have evidence of being attacked. However, he did. The evidence seems to indicate that he would have suffered severe injury or even death if he didn't react the way he did. There is no evidence that indicates Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin at gunpoint or do anything that would have kept Martin from simply walking away.

                  Comment


                  • l leave this here for discussiong. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/6569...e-in-pictures/I

                    Comment


                    • King Ding Dong
                      King Ding Dong commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Go ahead and discuss. We are waiting.

                  • stand your ground

                    Except this case had nothing to do with Florida's "stand your ground" law ... it's hard to retreat from a threat when someone is beating you to a pulp and smashing your head against the pavement.

                    Comment


                    • Pack18Alex
                      Pack18Alex commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Should Trayvon Martin survived being shot and been on trial for Assault and Battery and Attempted Murder, he would have a SYG defense for being followed and fearing for his life. The PROBLEM with the TM SYG claim is the testimony of his friend, who told the court that he told her he was "safe" and "steps away" from his home. The fight took place near GZ's vehicle, NOT near the home.

                      So if GZ gets out of the vehicle, TM is right there and clocks him, I think TM has a SYG defense (which, by my understanding in Florida, doesn't remove GZ's unless GZ broke the law in creating the situation, which he didn't do). However, if TM chose to "retreat" and gets home, then returns to confront GZ, then TM doesn't have a SYG defense. Given the lack of evidence, my guess is that they are both acquitted from lack of evidence, unless you can recreate his location from phone GPS data.

                      SYG removes the obligation to retreat, but not the option. Once you retreat from the conflict, you no longer have a SYG claim if you counter-attack.

                      GZ's story: got out of car, followed, told to not follow, was returning to vehicle and looking around for an address when sucker-punched by TM.
                      RJ's story: TM was scared, got home and was "safe," then went quiet and became out of breath (presumably running), and asked GZ why he was being followed.

                      The "Get Off Me" comment is the only evidence that GZ started the physical altercation. However, if his hoodie was grabbed, he has non-lethal self defense. It's unclear that TM reasonably feared for his life, if so, he may SYG and attempt to kill GZ. If he didn't, he doesn't have the right to escalate to lethal force.

                    • packsaddle
                      packsaddle commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Speculation on top of speculation. So GZ says, and so, evidently, those who make GZ into a victim want to believe.

                    • moosetracker
                      moosetracker commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Pack18Alex "It's unclear that TM reasonably feared for his life"

                      Huh???? TM is dead, shot to death by GZ, and yet you question if it was reasonable for TM to fear for his life??? I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "yes", he correctly had reason to.
                  Working...
                  X