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

killing Trayvon - Page 211

post #3151 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

Let's play the scenario where Zimmerman gets help from aliens and Trayvon turns into a unicorn!!!! Your scenario is very unlikely...

How about the scenario where following random teenagers around is not being concerned about the neighborhood but being obsessive about burglaries and emboldened by carrying a gun?

BTW the story about the neighbor not wanting to do anything because the kid is black is not very plausible either and certainly cannot be generalized in any way, hell US prisons are full of black people, US media and movies full of black criminals and so on so forth.

I really don't give a shit if you believe my story.

The US prisons are full of black people due to the drug war. Movies are also full of white criminals too.

Zimmerman wasn't following some random teenager. ZImmerman was following someone he didn't recognize from the community which had several robberies recently. There is no evidence that he would not have done the same thing without a gun.

I guess when the police haven't done anything, following a suspicious individual until they show up is "obsessive."
post #3152 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacatfish View Post

They are all indeed quite different. What they have in common is that they do not involve Z being jumped by surprise ( his version of the story).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacatfish View Post

They are all indeed quite different. What they have in common is that they do not involve Z being jumped by surprise ( his version of the story).

That is not Z's version of the story.
Quote:
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
post #3153 of 6250
HB you have no evidence, other than Martin's skinned knuckles and Zimmerman's obvious recent blows to the face, to support such an unlikely story. We'll never really know the fat short guy did not chase down the skinny, very tall teenager while waiving a gun the whole time. We'll never really know why the teenager decided, "This guy waiving the gun at me is a shitty fighter" and decided to punch him but we do know both those scenarios are far more likely and plausible than the lame story Zimmerman has given us.
post #3154 of 6250
My mistake Piob. It must be the defense attorney instinct getting to me.
post #3155 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post


That is not Z's version of the story.

Okay then according to z he was sucker punched not jumped. In any case, by z's story he did not initiate the contact. That is obviously an important fact when considering a case about self defense. Most of his story continues along the same lines (m reached for the gun, said he would "die tonight" etc. all perfectly in line with a self defense claim. I have trouble believing all that.
It's all a little convenient. Smells fishy to me but we all know here that we will probably never know the whole truth. Dead men tell no tales after all.
post #3156 of 6250
I am surprised this thread has remained so active. To think if Zimmerman was a Negro this case wouldn't have made more than the evening news.
post #3157 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

I am surprised this thread has remained so active. To think if Zimmerman was a Negro this case wouldn't have made more than the evening news.

Hey jp

You would be correct.

Same as if it were 2 whites.

But if ever there was a case set up for media exploitation, this is it What I mean is the consistent media barrage feeds the news cycles. And the usual suspect race baiters and exploiters were right on the case if you remember.

You might have an opinion on my opinion. I think that obviously no one but Z will ever know what exactly happened that day. And it is unlikely that a jury will follow the letter of the law and go strictly by jury instructions and the evidence presented. I see another race baiting, divisive show that is going to be played out. What do you think?
post #3158 of 6250
I'm surprised that people insist that this is a simple case of self defense. It is not. It would be if all you want to look at is when Z was getting his head bashed in.

Fact, Z made it clear in his call to 911 that there's been breakins in the neighborhood
Fact, Z made it apparent in his call to 911 that he thought M was a suspicious character and up to no good.
Fact, Z says that M was staring him down and then advances towards him.
Fact, Z says that M then starts running away.
Fact, Z admits that he's following M after making a derogatory comment
Fact, Z stops pursuing after the dispatcher tells him to stop.

Based on the 911 calls one can say that Z was just being a good citizen.
Based on the 911 calls one can say that Z was also a bit upset and was going to do something about it. He openly admits to actively pursuing M.

In the next couple of minutes is when something happened that lead up to Z shooting M.

I remember a bunch of people saying he's covered on SYG laws. I said I didn't think that would fly because of Z's involvement in an admitted active pursuit. His legal council refused to go with SYG and opted for a self defense trial. Why?

Like it or not Z is responsible for initiating the chain of events that lead to M getting shot. This little detail is where a self defense stance could end up being a problem for Z. Again, part of a self defense claim is the element of through no fault of your own has to be there. Z does not have that if one looks at the incident as a whole. I will say though if I ignore everything leading up to the fight then yeah I think Z was fully justified in his actions.

"I" cannot just dismiss the events leading up to the shooting. They are relevant and I can't see how anyone can successfully argue against that. If nothing else it's another example of one poor decision being made one right after the other by both Z and M. If either side would have just turned and walked away none of this would have ever occurred.

I do not believe Z has a valid self defense case for the reason I stated above. Does he deserve to go to jail? No. I think he is guilty of negligent manslaughter and should receive a suspended sentence.
post #3159 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

I'm surprised that people insist that this is a simple case of self defense. It is not. It would be if all you want to look at is when Z was getting his head bashed in.

Fact, Z made it clear in his call to 911 that there's been breakins in the neighborhood
Fact, Z made it apparent in his call to 911 that he thought M was a suspicious character and up to no good.
Fact, Z says that M was staring him down and then advances towards him.
Fact, Z says that M then starts running away.
Fact, Z admits that he's following M after making a derogatory comment
Fact, Z stops pursuing after the dispatcher tells him to stop.

Based on the 911 calls one can say that Z was just being a good citizen.
Based on the 911 calls one can say that Z was also a bit upset and was going to do something about it. He openly admits to actively pursuing M.

In the next couple of minutes is when something happened that lead up to Z shooting M.

I remember a bunch of people saying he's covered on SYG laws. I said I didn't think that would fly because of Z's involvement in an admitted active pursuit. His legal council refused to go with SYG and opted for a self defense trial. Why?

Like it or not Z is responsible for initiating the chain of events that lead to M getting shot. This little detail is where a self defense stance could end up being a problem for Z. Again, part of a self defense claim is the element of through no fault of your own has to be there. Z does not have that if one looks at the incident as a whole. I will say though if I ignore everything leading up to the fight then yeah I think Z was fully justified in his actions.

"I" cannot just dismiss the events leading up to the shooting. They are relevant and I can't see how anyone can successfully argue against that. If nothing else it's another example of one poor decision being made one right after the other by both Z and M. If either side would have just turned and walked away none of this would have ever occurred.

I do not believe Z has a valid self defense case for the reason I stated above. Does he deserve to go to jail? No. I think he is guilty of negligent manslaughter and should receive a suspended sentence.

Florida self defense law doesn't say anything about "no fault of your own". Do laws in other states say that? Seems like that could stretch pretty far.

Florida does say that you can't justify lethal force if you provoked it, but then there's this little tidbit
Quote:
Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

which seems applicable to Zimmerman's story. I'm sure there's some case law on what constitutes "provoking", but if all he's doing is following the guy in a public place then my instinct is to say that's not provocation.
post #3160 of 6250
Munchausen, yes that exact wording is in at least MO's self defense law. IMO FLA's use of the word provoke means the same thing. Basically if you do something that initiates a confrontation then claiming self defense if it gets that bad starts getting really sketchy. Personally, when it comes to self defense using deadly force "I" would rather not see muddy cases like this get an acquittal or being deemed justifiable. I'm probably not conveying this very well but I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make.
post #3161 of 6250
That's not the exact wording. Here's the exact wording:
Quote:
Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
post #3162 of 6250
OK Piob, you got me on that one. Is what I said and the letter of the law exactly the same thing as far as intent and meaning is concerned?
post #3163 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

OK Piob, you got me on that one. Is what I said and the letter of the law exactly the same thing as far as intent and meaning is concerned?

No idea. What I do know, based on my own interaction with the legal system at work, is exact wording is very important when laws get applied. A simple word like "shall" can have all kinds of implication so I always just go straight to the actual document.

What I wonder about the MO law is how far back in the chain of events do prosecutors go when determining to charge or not? Zimmerman, per his account, had disengaged and was walking away. Would the decision be made at that point or farther back in the chain of events?
post #3164 of 6250
You guys didn't read the whole chapter.
Quote:
Use of force in defense of persons.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

Not only do the words "no fault of his own" not appear there, but it appears to be the same as every other state more or less, with the caveat that this isn't legal advice and I just skimmed it.
post #3165 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You guys didn't read the whole chapter.
Not only do the words "no fault of his own" not appear there, but it appears to be the same as every other state more or less, with the caveat that this isn't legal advice and I just skimmed it.

I read it and only posted the passage I thought resembled what Crane said.
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