Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

There are a few things that are pretty clear to me: George Zimmerman is lying, the Sanford PD is lying to cover their asses, and if the tables were turned, had Trayvon shot Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, there's no question in my mind that: a) We would not be having this conversation and b) Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;905899]There are a few things that are pretty clear to me: George Zimmerman is lying, the Sanford PD is lying to cover their asses, and if the tables were turned, had Trayvon shot Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, there's no question in my mind that: a) We would not be having this conversation and b) Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail.[/quote]

I agree. I just wonder why PD would try to cover it up in the first place. Its not like Zimmerman was a pillar of the community or something, where they didn't want him/the city to get bad press.

I just don't see what the PD was trying to achieve by completely screwing the entire situation.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;905646]Your example isn't a good one. Zimmerman followed Martin in a vehicle, got out against the orders of the 911 operator, and approached Trayvon Martin. His actions precipitated the ensuing the events. Had Zimmerman been an officer of the law, properly identified himself, then that's a different story. But he made up his made that Trayvon Martin was up to something and decided to take matters into his own hands. That much is very clear from the 911 audio.

Where we disagree is this, you're assuming because George Zimmerman suffered in a physical altercation, he's justified in pulling out his weapon. That is not stand your ground, sir. Even if George Zimmerman got his ass beat, which he didn't, that doesn't give him the legal grounds to pull his firearm and shoot an innocent teen in cold blood.[/quote]

You facts are not correct. Zimmerman was out of his car following Trayvon when the 911 operator asked if he was following him and said he did not have to do that. After that its not clear what happened.

[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
[B][U]Are you following him?[/U][/B] [2:24]
[B]Zimmerman:[/B]
[B][U]Yeah[/U].[/B] [2:25]
[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
[B]OK.[/B]
[B][U]We don’t need you to do that[/U].[/B] [2:26]
[B]Zimmerman:[/B]
[B][U]OK.[/U][/B] [2:28]
[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

The coversation then turned to where he would meet the cops when they arrived. To me that tells me Zimmerman was returning to his car to meet the cops but who knows.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Honestly, I think at first they just took his word for it and kept it moving thinking this would all go away.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The problem with all of this is evidence. Regardless if you think he's guilty as hell, it all boils down to evidence. Is there any to sufficiently to debunk Zimmerman's side of the story? As of what we've been shown so far, I doubt it. We would need a injury report from a medical examiner to fully comprehend what type of physical harm we was undertaking. (if any)


Sounds like the guy is just a overzealous wanna-be-cop that over stepped his boundaries. However, this is merely a observation and just a opinion.



I will say that people that are saying he's racists should step back. This is NOT a racial issue, nor was this a hate crime. Does the guy profile? Sure, but that doesn't mean it was racial profiling. You can profile a person based on clothes, hair style, etc... In fact, the FBI uses profiling to catch many criminals. We all profile, whether we say we don't or not. If you lived in a area where you saw on TV that the majority of crimes were committed by people dressed like "thugs" (hoodies/pants pulled down/doo rags). Chances are you would be wary of people dressed like "thugs". I'm merely using this as an example, and not saying this is the case.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;905973]You facts are not correct. Zimmerman was out of his car following Trayvon when the 911 operator asked if he was following him and said he did not have to do that. After that its not clear what happened.

[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
[B][U]Are you following him?[/U][/B] [2:24]
[B]Zimmerman:[/B]
[B][U]Yeah[/U].[/B] [2:25]
[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
[B]OK.[/B]
[B][U]We don’t need you to do that[/U].[/B] [2:26]
[B]Zimmerman:[/B]
[B][U]OK.[/U][/B] [2:28]
[B]911 dispatcher:[/B]
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

The coversation then turned to where he would meet the cops when they arrived. To me that tells me Zimmerman was returning to his car to meet the cops but who knows.[/quote]

Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906021]Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.[/quote]

They seem to believe that the 911 call validates Zimmerman's claims despite the 1 min gap in events, his trailing of the boy and claim of "they always get away," his aggressive history and blatant profiling. Unbelievable.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I'll just be glad when they arrest him, it's long overdue. For their part, Sanford PD haven't done Zimmerman any favors by dragging this out. There's not a juror out there that will be impartial and fair due to all the information leaking out in bits. You can't help but feel empathy for the victim regardless of the circumstances surrounding what actually took place. Even in Trayvon clocked Zimmerman a few times, isn't he entitled to protect and defend himself from an armed stranger?

Meanwhile you have a dead 17 year old boy who's been buried for nearly month, no signs of a scuffle whatsoever on his hands or body, and his killer remains free. I'm sorry, but this whole things smacks of Jim Crow justice.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906058]no signs of a scuffle whatsoever on his hands or body[/quote]

You read the autopsy report? Talked to the police about their evidence? Just curious on how you can make that assumption. Right now, we (the public) really don't know jack shit.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;906075]You read the autopsy report? Talked to the police about their evidence? Just curious on how you can make that assumption. Right now, we (the public) really don't know jack shit.[/quote]

Not an assumption.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/31/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-fight/]Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Video of funeral director.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-of-fight_n_1393073.html]Trayvon Martin's Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight On Body (VIDEO)[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906085]Not an assumption.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/31/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-fight/"]Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News[/URL][/quote]


Did the police even order an autopsy be done?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6IJWVXMbIyI/T1jRJBAMzTI/AAAAAAAAU0I/NCRpR1hxcAE/s1600/tumblr_m0akjxjxJz1rqlckko1_r1_1280.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906085]Not an assumption.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/31/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-no-signs-fight/]Trayvon Martin Funeral Director: No Signs Of Fight | Fox News[/url][/quote]

Funeral director isn't remotely a expert or authority on this subject. I'll wait for a autopsy or official report.


Not saying he's not telling the truth, but his word would not be entered as a professional expert.


Witnesses even said they were fighting, which is why neighbors called 911. So no offense, his opinion means jack shit.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;906093]Did the police even order an autopsy be done?[/quote]

[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-autopsy-20120326,0,5032520.story]Trayvon Martin case: What does the autopsy show? - latimes.com[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

So, in response to 12th's and saden1's statements that Zimmerman's actions created the reasonable fear in Martin and that it was he, Martin, that had the right to defend himself, I started poking around and found the law in this area not as clear cut as one would hope.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

(1) Absolutely, saden1 and 12th are right in that Zimmerman's actions could be reasonably seen to cause [I]Martin/I] reasonable fear of imminent harm. The question is what was Martin's or anyone's duty at that point.

In Maryland, Virginia and most other States, you have a "duty to retreat" so long as you reasonably and subjectively believe you can do so safely [[I]e.g.[/I] If I am walking with my daughter and am stalked and pursued, I could reasonably say "my daughter cannot safely retreat, so I can stay"; also a disabled person is not bound to retreat from a pursuing able bodied person; you need not retreat from someone brandishing a gun as you cannot reasonably be expected to outrun a bullet].

In Florida and Pennsylvania (which also has a "stand your ground" law") there is no duty to retreat from a place you have a right to be.

With that said, based on the conversation that Martin was having with his girlfriend, it seemed to me he acted incredibly prudently for a teenager, more so than I would have at his age. His girlfriend told him to run from the unidentified pursuer and his response was something like "I will walk faster, but I am not gonna run".

(2) No one has the right to escalate a confrontation. In this case, again according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman said "Why are you here?" to which Martin replied "Why are you following me?" [I may have that reveresed]. This brief verbal exchange suggests to me that "pursuit" had stopped and, instead, we now had a momentary aggressive confrontation between aggressive adult pursuer and defensive juvenile pursued (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that Martin was a defenseless elementary school "child" like my daughter and I won't insult yours by saying Zimmerman was just making friendly inquiry).

If, instead of this exchange, Zimmerman simply attacked Martin, again, too bad so sad for Zimmerman if Zimm starts to lose a fight he started without provocation.

Rather than an immediate attack by Zimmerman, however, what we have is a verbal confrontation between two individuals that escalates immediately into a pushing/shoving match according to the girlfriend. It is unclear who pushed who first.

Then we have nothing as g/f's loses contact.

Next thing we have is two witnesses "John", who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Witness X who say that they witnessed Martin attacking Zimmerman. Neither saw the gunshot. (I apologize I can't find the link to Witness X today - he/she was another individual who saw the altercation but not the beginning of it and refused to have even have his/her gender revealed b/c he/she was afraid of the possible reprucussions - this person essentially repeats the testimony of witness "John" and appeared to be as close to the action as "John". If I can find the link, I will post). Then Trayvon is shot.

Regardless of who threw the first punch, I think what we have is the legal doctrine "mutual combat". It is an imperfect defense to murder. At the point of verbal confrontation, either Zimmerman or Martin could have backed down. Neither did. Both, to me, had braced themselves for a physical confrontation and, regardless of who started it, once that happens, Zimmerman can no longer claim self-defense and, instead, is guilty of manslaughter.

Here's language from a Maryland case on the subject:
[quote]Homicide in self-defense is either justifiable or excusable. Justifiable self-defense is where a person is feloniously assaulted, being without fault himself, and necessarily kills his assailant to save himself from death or great bodily harm, or from other felony attempted by force or surprise. Excusable self-defense is where a person becomes engaged in a sudden affray or combat, and in the course of the affray or combat, necessarily, or under reasonably apparent necessity, kills his adversary to save himself from death or great bodily harm after retreating as far as he can with safety. The force used must not be unreasonable or excessive. [I]See Ware v. State[/I], 3 Md. App. 62, 65; [I]Tipton v. State[/I], 1 Md. App. 556, 560. The distinction between justifiable and excusable self-defense is real but has not practical effect in application. If the homicide is committed in either justifiable or excusable self-defense within the frame of reference of their meanings, the killer is not culpable. [I]But there may be a homicide which would otherwise be murder which is reduced to manslaughter by circumstances of alleviation or mitigation. Such a case is where the circumstances surrounding the homicide establish that it was provoked.[/I]

For the "Rule of Provocation" to be invoked there are four requirements: (1) There must have been adequate provocation; (2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion; (3) It must have been a sudden heat of passion -- that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool; and (4) There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.

See Perkins, Criminal Law (1957), pp. 43-55. There is adequate provocation when there is a mutual quarrel or combat. "[I]The combat is mutual if the intent to fight is mutual, and in such situations the question of which one actually strikes the first blow is not controlling. In fact, if both intend to fight and are ready to do so it may be a 'mutual combat' although one party did not actually strike any blow.[/I]" Blackstone expressed it, [B]"If upon sudden quarrel, two persons fight, and one slay the other, this is manslaughter; so also, if upon such occasion, they go out and fight in a field[/B]." 4 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law (Gavit), p. 831. "But no provocation, however, grievous, will reduce a voluntary homicide to manslaughter, if the circumstances show that the slayer acted, not in the heat of blood, but from malice." Clark & Marshall, supra, § 10.11, p. 621."[/quote]

Based on what I have read and heard, this is what happened. Pursuit, verbal confrontation, fight, death. It was an impermissible killing in the heat of passion.

So, to be clear, I have changed my opinion in this matter in that I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter b/c, regardless of who through the first bunch, and based on the girlfriend's statements, we had an aggressive verbal confrontation that turned violent and someone ended up dead.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;906100]Funeral director isn't remotely a expert or authority on this subject. I'll wait for a autopsy or official report.


Not saying he's not telling the truth, but his word would not be entered as a professional expert.[/quote]

I'll give you that. Still, I take him at his word that the kid didn't appear to be in scuffle. I mean, Zimmerman said his nose was broken and head beat on the concrete several times. This is in the police report. You would think that a fist would bruised, bloody knuckle or something. Could be wrong though, I guess we'll see.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

So I'll withhold judgement on Trayvon's bodily injuries or lack thereof until the conclusive autopsy report is made public.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

JoeRedskin, to date there are no witness that actually saw the incident from start to end. So it boils down to Zimmerman's word against Trayvon Martin's. And Trayvon Martin is dead.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Also, I believe Zimmerman is lying when he said that Martin waylaid him as Zimmerman was returning to his car. To me, that is just as ridiculous as the original assertions that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood.

@12th - yes, I believe the Sanford PD took Zimmerman at his word that it was self-defense, found no one to contradict it and, instead, found witnesses saying that Martin was beating Zimmerman. In light of Florida's self-defense immunity-from-arrest law, it is not unreasonable for them to have acted in this fashion.

At the same time, the officer at the scene recommended that Zimmerman be arrested for manslaughter but was overruled by the State's Attorney.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Yeah, I thought it was strange that the State's Attorney was even present to begin with and overturned the officer at the scene without collecting any facts, no DNA, no nothing. Just overturned it. Interesting.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906109]JoeRedskin, to date there are no witness that actually saw the incident from start to end. So it boils down to Zimmerman's word against Trayvon Martin's. And Trayvon Martin is dead.[/quote]

Yes. No. Sorta. Agreed we have a critical gap. At the same time, we know there was a verbal confrontation based on the statement of the girlfriend. We know there was some type of physical altercation based on the eye witnesses.

At the least, Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter based on the 911 call and the girlfriend's statements and the "mutual combat" doctrine. However, it is the State's duty to prove murder so, lacking something more than what I have seen out there, I can't see them proving it at this point.

It will not be the first time a murderer has walked for lack of a witness. It happens in Baltimore all the time and usually the alleged murderer has a much more sordid history than Zimmerman.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906112]Yeah, I thought it was strange that the State's Attorney was even present to begin with and overturned the officer at the scene without collecting any facts, no DNA, no nothing. Just overturned it. Interesting.[/quote]

Again, yes, no, sorta - police recommendations get overturned all the time. Hell, in Baltimore for a while, it was a HUGE bone of contention between the PD and State's Attorney. I would not be surprised if the SA took one look at this and said - this could be a problem, let's not rush into it. Again, I blame Florida's self-defense, immunity-from-arrest law. Rather than the "Stand-your-ground" law, this is the law that needs changing in Florida.

Seriously, the amount of bad judgment by the various actors in this case is amaziing - from Zimmerman, to the police, to the media, etc. it's just stunning.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

You live in Balitmore? I was up there for St. Paddy's. Good times.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Yup - been here since 1987.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906021]Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.[/quote]

The area I remembered was right by the road and side walk.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906133]Yup - been here since 1987.[/quote]

Get over to Mothers at all?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906116]Again, yes, no, sorta - police recommendations get overturned all the time. Hell, in Baltimore for a while, it was a HUGE bone of contention between the PD and State's Attorney. [B]I would not be surprised if the SA took one look at this and said - this could be a problem, let's not rush into it. [/B] Again, I blame Florida's self-defense, immunity-from-arrest law. Rather than the "Stand-your-ground" law, this is the law that needs changing in Florida.

Seriously, the amount of bad judgment by the various actors in this case is amaziing - from Zimmerman, to the police, to the media, etc. it's just stunning.[/quote]

thats a very good point, had never thought about it like that. also did not realize the immunity from arrest law was a seperate law than the stand your ground law. still i wouldn't mind seeing[I] both [/I]of those laws amended.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;906138]The area I remembered was right by the road and side walk.[/quote]

the area you remembered from what? i'm guessing a picture from the media? we already know how misleading those can be.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906140]Get over to Mothers at all?[/quote]

Nope. But, if you want ot meet up for a drink there, just let me know when. Beginning in a couple weeks my Friday nights free up as my wife takes the kids over to the In-laws on the weekends.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmdub130;906141]thats a very good point, had never thought about it like that. also did not realize the immunity from arrest law was a seperate law than the stand your ground law. still i wouldn't mind seeing[I] both [/I]of those laws amended.[/quote]

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not [I]that[/I] bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't [I]have[/I] to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906145]Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not [I]that[/I] bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't [I]have[/I] to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.[/quote]

you shouldn't have to, but theres also a lot of other things i shouldn't have to do. comes back to that whole common sense thing, have to take each case as it comes and for the most part just have some faith in humanity.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906145]Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not [I]that[/I] bad it may need some tweaking. [/quote]

I think any situation where you chase after a individual, the "stand your ground defense" should become null and void. I find it hard to believe that one can claim self defense when he was in fact being the aggressor and pursuing the other.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I wasn't saying Zimmerman had a right to the stand your ground defense. I don't think he did. Rather, I think it was Martin that could invoke the stand your ground defense. In Maryland, if he felt threatened by Zimmerman's pursuit, Martin had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman. In Florida, under the same circumstances, Martin did not.

I think, the idea that Zimmerman could invoke the "stand your ground" defense comes from the version of the story where Martin waylays Zimmerman as he returns to his car. A version not born out by the girlfriend's statement or, IMHO, a reasonable view of the scene.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906145]Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not [I]that[/I] bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't [I]have[/I] to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.[/quote]


I believe in the social law that says "don't start shit, there won't be shit." I believe using deadly force as a last resort. I believe in seeking a safe place to retreat if you hear someone pop-offs. If you can't, by all means, get behind the nearest thing and aim to kill. I believe that people can lose it and shoot you dead for talking shit about their mama or spitting at them. I believe that would constitute manslaughter.

I believe the laws on the book are adequate. I don't believe Stand Your Ground solves any real world need or problem. I believe all it does is introduce uncertainty into the picture and makes it permissible to subjectively shoot someone.

[quote]
Stand Your Ground Law:

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;[/quote] I can come up with countless of scenarios that render the above law idiotic. I mean, it nullifies responsibility for the utterance of fighting words, instigation and escalation of a situation. It can potentially allows sadistic people to get away with murder. Any law that simply requires you to have wounds to justify self-defense is beyond idiotic.

Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906105]So, in response to 12th's and saden1's statements that Zimmerman's actions created the reasonable fear in Martin and that it was he, Martin, that had the right to defend himself, I started poking around and found the law in this area not as clear cut as one would hope.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

(1) Absolutely, saden1 and 12th are right in that Zimmerman's actions could be reasonably seen to cause [I]Martin/I] reasonable fear of imminent harm. The question is what was Martin's or anyone's duty at that point.

In Maryland, Virginia and most other States, you have a "duty to retreat" so long as you reasonably and subjectively believe you can do so safely [[I]e.g.[/I] If I am walking with my daughter and am stalked and pursued, I could reasonably say "my daughter cannot safely retreat, so I can stay"; also a disabled person is not bound to retreat from a pursuing able bodied person; you need not retreat from someone brandishing a gun as you cannot reasonably be expected to outrun a bullet].

In Florida and Pennsylvania (which also has a "stand your ground" law") there is no duty to retreat from a place you have a right to be.

With that said, based on the conversation that Martin was having with his girlfriend, it seemed to me he acted incredibly prudently for a teenager, more so than I would have at his age. His girlfriend told him to run from the unidentified pursuer and his response was something like "I will walk faster, but I am not gonna run".

(2) No one has the right to escalate a confrontation. In this case, again according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman said "Why are you here?" to which Martin replied "Why are you following me?" [I may have that reveresed]. This brief verbal exchange suggests to me that "pursuit" had stopped and, instead, we now had a momentary aggressive confrontation between aggressive adult pursuer and defensive juvenile pursued (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that Martin was a defenseless elementary school "child" like my daughter and I won't insult yours by saying Zimmerman was just making friendly inquiry).

If, instead of this exchange, Zimmerman simply attacked Martin, again, too bad so sad for Zimmerman if Zimm starts to lose a fight he started without provocation.

Rather than an immediate attack by Zimmerman, however, what we have is a verbal confrontation between two individuals that escalates immediately into a pushing/shoving match according to the girlfriend. It is unclear who pushed who first.

Then we have nothing as g/f's loses contact.

Next thing we have is two witnesses "John", who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Witness X who say that they witnessed Martin attacking Zimmerman. Neither saw the gunshot. (I apologize I can't find the link to Witness X today - he/she was another individual who saw the altercation but not the beginning of it and refused to have even have his/her gender revealed b/c he/she was afraid of the possible reprucussions - this person essentially repeats the testimony of witness "John" and appeared to be as close to the action as "John". If I can find the link, I will post). Then Trayvon is shot.

Regardless of who threw the first punch, I think what we have is the legal doctrine "mutual combat". It is an imperfect defense to murder. At the point of verbal confrontation, either Zimmerman or Martin could have backed down. Neither did. Both, to me, had braced themselves for a physical confrontation and, regardless of who started it, once that happens, Zimmerman can no longer claim self-defense and, instead, is guilty of manslaughter.

Here's language from a Maryland case on the subject:


Based on what I have read and heard, this is what happened. Pursuit, verbal confrontation, fight, death. It was an impermissible killing in the heat of passion.

So, to be clear, I have changed my opinion in this matter in that I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter b/c, regardless of who through the first bunch, and based on the girlfriend's statements, we had an aggressive verbal confrontation that turned violent and someone ended up dead.[/quote]

It seems reasonable to think that you can't create and participate in a situation that ends with the other party dead and then claim self-defense.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;906021]Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.[/quote]

Well what I just saw on the news the night of the shooting crime scene taped off was right by the road and had a truck right there. I don't know if it was Zimmermans truck but it was clearly by a road with a truck parked on the side of the road.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906156]I wasn't saying Zimmerman had a right to the stand your ground defense. I don't think he did. Rather, I think it was Martin that could invoke the stand your ground defense. In Maryland, if he felt threatened by Zimmerman's pursuit, Martin had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman. In Florida, under the same circumstances, Martin did not.

I think, the idea that Zimmerman could invoke the "stand your ground" defense comes from the version of the story where Martin waylays Zimmerman as he returns to his car. A version not born out by the girlfriend's statement or, IMHO, a reasonable view of the scene.[/quote]

Sorry, should have clarified my intent. I was expounding on your point that the law needs tweaking. Didn't mean to infer anything else.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;906157]... Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.[/quote]

What Zimmerman was doing was not Aggravated Stalking, that refers to repeated and/or continued course of conduct:


[quote]Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. [/quote]

[url=http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm]State Stalking Laws[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;906174]What Zimmerman was doing was not Aggravated Stalking, that refers to repeated and/or continued course of conduct:




[url=http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm]State Stalking Laws[/url][/quote]

Can you say with certainty Zimmerman's didnt follow him repeatedly? We have Trayvon say he lost him, you have Zimmerman say he lost sight of him. Couple that with Zimmerman following him, saying "they always get away" and the fact that Trayvon ended up in a body bag you can make the case for repeated stalking.