or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 167

post #2491 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

It's not about perceived threat so much as whether that perception was reasonable. That's a question for the jury.

That's pretty much what I said. All that really matters is whether or not others will agree that your action was warranted under the circumstances.
post #2492 of 6250
Let's change the scenario around a bit. Let's say Z did indeed confront M and after an exchange M walked off. Z continues to follow and at a certain point M turns, draws a gun and tells Z to backoff while stepping backwards at the same time. Z ignores the warning, starts screaming and bull rushes M. M fires twice and Z falls dead at his feet.

Self defense or not?
post #2493 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Let's change the scenario around a bit. Let's say Z did indeed confront M and after an exchange M walked off. Z continues to follow and at a certain point M turns, draws a gun and tells Z to backoff while stepping backwards at the same time. Z ignores the warning, starts screaming and bull rushes M. M fires twice and Z falls dead at his feet.
Self defense or not?

No, because M pulling the gun was an aggravated assault, which cancels out his self defense right. Probably not murder but manslaughter.
post #2494 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

No, because M pulling the gun was an aggravated assault, which cancels out his self defense right. Probably not murder but manslaughter.

Are you sure of that Munch?
post #2495 of 6250
Well not completely. That's my reading of the law the way it's written. Things could certainly turn out differently, especially with a jury that was sympathetic to the shooter.
post #2496 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Well not completely. That's my reading of the law the way it's written. Things could certainly turn out differently, especially with a jury that was sympathetic to the shooter.

It's actually a very basic self defense scenario that's fairly common on the street. I left out details on purpose but left enough there to make a good self defense case. At the initial point of contact the shooter showed self restraint and a reluctance to engage the aggressor by retreating. The aggressor continued the situation by actively following the retreating shooter. At a certain point as the gap closes the elements are coming together to justify a self defense reaction. 21 feet is considered the outside distance where a self defense posture can be taken for the most part. Once that line is crossed is when the gun comes into play. It's not fired but is used as a force multiplier in an attempt to stop the continued and escalating hostile situation. Again that shows restraint and reluctance. So does retreating for the second time while telling the aggressor he will be shot if he does not go away. The aggressor ignores all of this and escalates things even more by bull rushing the guy with the gun. Anyone in their right mind would not do this unless they fully intended to do you serious bodily harm or wanted to kill you.
post #2497 of 6250
Yeah I get what you are saying. This is a pretty fine point that is beyond the limits of my expertise on the matter. I could certainly see a jury siding for or against the shooter in those circumstances, depending on his behavior before and after the shooting.
post #2498 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur PE View Post

the evidence I've reviewed indicated zimmerman got out of the car and chased him
they confronted each other, and were arguing that could be heard on the phone

zimmerman was coming at him yelling at him to stop or whatever, and martin may turned and closed in on him too, a fight ensued
perhaps zimmerman wouldn't let martin leave until the cops arrived (that is illegal) and martin tried to get away and a fight ensued

we know zimmerman chased him contrary to police advice
they aregued before they fought
they fought
martin was shot


if zimmerman drove away
stayed in his vehicle
waited for the cops
he was in no danger, was armed, and had no police or arrest authority

only 2 people know what happened
one is dead, the other the incentive to lie if he was in the wrong

I think zimmerman pulled his gun to detain him, the kid rushed him, gun went off, zimmerman cracked his head, kid fell on him

their was no damage to martins knuckles hands, other than a small abrasion near his ring
no scrathces on his face, etc.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're just making shit up. What about the Unicorns?
post #2499 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by cronicmole View Post

Alot of closet racists coming out of the woodwork.

Why is he a racist? B/c he mentioned that the murdered kid had said "nigger?" Does using the dreaded "N" word now equal a death sentence?

Be specific. Why is trying to apply the facts and best evidence (as it is actually known) to the law racist?
post #2500 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Well, you have given me quite a few data points. It's the conclusion that is still in play. Are you trolling or are you that stupid? I have yet to reach my own conclusion on that so feel free to chime in which way you think I should lean.

I actually think Lasbar is pretty fucking stupid.
post #2501 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

if you get yourself into a situation that you didn't have to get into, because you know that you have the ability to easily kill somebody in your pocket, and then you end up killing somebody, you did something stupid and immoral, although not illigal. .

Really? Of all people to think this way I'm shocked that you, whom have said on many occasions that you have no problem with "killing bad people," would feel this way.

I would think that their are certain types of people-drug dealing gang bangers being one- that perhaps a little killing might improve. And if you're going to tell them to get the fuck out of your neighborhood and away from your family and kids, then it is only prudent to make sure you've got a gun in your pocket before you do so.

I have exactly one gun in my house. And if I'm ever running crack dealing hoods off my block I will be sure to take it out of it's box, unlock the child safety lock, load it, and put it on my hip or in a pocket before I go run said hoods.

(btw, I would put the chance of this ever actually happening at about 0. I live in a neighborhood where the cops come when they are called and the crack dealers keep it indoors. And if I did not I would move long before I went vigilante).
post #2502 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That's not really a good example. Walking up to someone and talking to them, outside any threatening context, shouldn't remove your ability to defend yourself if they decide to attack you for no reason. Now if you walked up to him and started yelling at him for being a drug dealing scumbag and to get the fuck out of your neighborhood, that might change the situation.

This attitude is why society is going to hell in a hand-basket.
post #2503 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Yeah I get what you are saying. This is a pretty fine point that is beyond the limits of my expertise on the matter. I could certainly see a jury siding for or against the shooter in those circumstances, depending on his behavior before and after the shooting.

Yep. Remember me mentioning the guy and gal incident that was caught on tape? My little scenario is almost a play by play of that incident. When it was all said and done the shooting was determined to be a justified use of deadly force in a self defense scenario. I don't think anything else came of it criminally or if a civil case was ever opened.
post #2504 of 6250
Wasn't that Philly case another example of just that? Guy felt threatened for his life even though he was not physically assaulted, drew his weapon, the dudes didn't retreat, he shot them and walked out the courthouse free.
post #2505 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Because it was Zimmerman's neighborhood? Because the cops were on the way? Because 99% of burglars would just run away? Because a normal innocent who is wrongly suspected wouldn't respond with violence? I can think of a lot of reasons other than Zimmerman just wanting to kill someone.
The fact is that it's Martin whose actions were unusual, stupid, and criminal here, not Zimmerman's.

You really choose not to let yourself see a lot of the evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You can't envision a situation where a person realizes that they're being pursued for no apparent reason and feels threatened enough to defend them self? With their fists, of course, not with deadly force.
plain.gif You are seriously emotionally vested in character assassination against Martin, aren't you? There's no evidence that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time (prior to possibly jumping Zimmerman). You can link together various factors to indicate that he might have been the type of person who might rob a house, but Zimmerman wouldn't have known any of it.

+1

Exactly what I'm saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I think people are wondering to what extent you can provoke a fight and then claim self defense when it goes sour. If you run down someone on the street and start screaming at them, they feel threatened and slug you, are you justified in shooting them? That doesn't seem right intuitively, but obviously that's not a legal justification.

Exactly. That seems to be the whole point of this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

He didn't do anything illegal--until he jumped Zimmerman. The last part is the rub, isn't it? You know, at this point, we really have two stories.
The first is Zimmerman's--that he watched Martin from his truck, followed Martin a hundred feet or so and turned around. Martin backtracked, approached him, said something like "What's your problem?" then attacked him. Then we have the girl on the phone, who says Martin was worried by Zimmerman following him. So far so good. But they meet up somehow anyway, she doesn't know who approached who or what, but Martin says "Why are you following me?" and presumably Zimmerman attacks Martin. The girl's story is dubious because she waited so long to tell it, and because of the time involved (if her story is believed, Martin must have been walking away from Zimmerman at a pretty leisurely pace since he had three or four minutes and only covered a hundred feet or so if he didn't backtrack) -- but whatever.
Anyway, neither the girl nor Zimmerman describes Martin as attacking Zimmerman in self-defense as you seem to postulate.

+1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon