Well you could, but since there's a "reasonable" clause, the State wouldn't have much problem showing that shooting someone who is following you to return your wallet is not reasonable, nor is there a reasonable fear of great bodily harm just because someone is following you.
Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Sure, but what is "reasonable"? How can anyone judge whether another person's claim to having been afraid is reasonable?
Suppose a woman is walking down a street alone, at night, in the dark, etc., and she spies a man following (or appearing to) her. Even if the guy is not following her, is her fear not reasonable?
Suppose a woman is walking down a street alone, at night, in the dark, etc., and she spies a man following (or appearing to) her. Even if the guy is not following her, is her fear not reasonable?
Each instance would probably have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because what counts as "reasonable" would depend heavily on the specifics of the situation. This is what we have judges and juries for.
Having no other information to go on, I would say no, that wouln't be reasonable. She would need some reason to think that the guy intended to harm her other than the simple fact that he was male.
OK, suppose there is a serial rapist at large in her city or neighborhood, then might her fear be judged to be reasonable? Alternately, there could be some factor specific to her own recent experiences which might have heightened her response.
Point being, I don't think it's often--if ever--that one can conclusively determine whether another's fear is "reasonable" or "unreasonable."
Again, this is exactly what judges and juries are for. Someone has to decide, so they do. It might not be "conclusive," but what can you do? It often comes down to 12 jurors asking themselves "Would I have done the same thing in that person's position?" It all 12 answer "no," then it wasn't reasonable.
Technical question: does anyone know if "reasonableness" is a finding of fact or a legal conclusion?
Last edited:
It's not just fear, it's imminent fear of great bodily harm.
You can't project that far forward to say that just because someone you think someone is following you that you are in imminent fear of great bodily harm.
However if someone is in fact pounding on you, the imminent part is taken care of as is the fear issue.
The law in Florida is VERY lenient toward anyone claiming self defense, but not quite that lenient.
Still, even in the situation you outlined, if the State charged her, it would be the State who has the burden of proof that that fear wasn't reasonable.
So the fact is, even in pretty questionable cases, the self defense claim in Florida isn't easy for the state to overcome.
Give the accused one good corroborating witness that they were being pounded and its almost impossible.
Indeed, the worst part for a small community like Sanford, is that the law actually makes them liable for potentially significant damages if they arrest, charge and lose.
Zimmerman would come under 776.012, and if he WAS arrested and charged and found innocent he can use 776.032 to go after the state for illegal prosecution.
From what I've been reading that in many Florida self defense cases, this question of immunity is dealt with first directly with a judge in a pre-trial motion, before the DA will even consider filing charges, and if they lose this motion, they pay all court and legal costs of the Defendent.
But so far it would appear that under Florida Law, Zimmerman's actions fall under 776.012.
So when a Sheriff is told by the DA that againt a claim of self-defense, that they have no case, don't expect the Sheriff to arrest the suspect anyway.
Last edited:
right your not hung up on that one witness which is why your ignoring the statements of all the other witness that you know suggest that their maybe lying.
Yeah, funny thing about the law.
One good witness supporting your claim is usually all it takes to create reasonable doubt.
Do you agree that no witness has come forward that saw the fight start?
Do you agree that no witness has come forward that saw the shooting?
Do you agree that there is only one witness that claims they saw most of the fight?
Do you agree that there is only one witness who actually spoke to the two people while they were fighting?
The other witnesses say they HEARD the fight, or saw Zimmerman after the fight, but no witness has come forward and said that they SAW anything different than that key witness during the fight.
One 13 year old boy says the guy in red (Zimmerman) was on the bottom, but then his dog got off the leash and he ran to get him and was not there when the gun went off. His mother says it was too dark to tell color, but then his mother wasn't there.
Another woman now says she believes it was Martin who was crying out, but she did not actually see the fight, so it doesn't matter what she believes, compared to the guy actually speaking to the two fighters.
There was an "ear-witness" on the phone, but clearly she didn't see anything and nothing she has said has indicated that it wasn't Zimmerman being beaten.
If you have another witness in mind who I haven't mentioned, please by all means, bring it up.
Oh, and as to the contention that the witness is lying. If he is, no one has provided any motive for him doing so. Got one?
Unless you do, neither you nor the State of Florida can just presume that he is lying.
Look, I didn't make the law and I've said from my first post that it needs to be reworked and I posted a decent critique of that law (Don't call 911. use .357) that shows in pretty good detail why it needs to be changed, so what is your actual complaint here?
Last edited:
K
keith1
Guest
I think this event will come down to the mom thinking about stray bullets coming through her kitchen window, even when her kitchen window is in a gated community. I think the boys are going to be made to put away their toys. It doesn't bode well for gun rights in the modern suburban community.
I didn't claim that that charge was accepted by the court. I said "He has an arrest for violence." I then produced the arrest record that showed his arrest for "RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE - BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER." You disagreed.
Correct. And if that had happened, which is what usually happens when there is a killing of a teenager under murky circumstances - with a man admitting that he did in fact kill him after pursuing hum - then there would have been a lot less outrage over it.
Hmm. Bill Lee: “In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense. Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”
Are you saying that he was lying, and that he actually DID have enough to arrest him at that point? But were prevented from doing so by the DA?
The real problem is not that they didn't write the law. The problem is that they are not doing their jobs, which is to investigate potential crimes, and determine the guilt or innocence of the people involved.
And that charge was not accepted by the court as valid, so you can't use a charge that was not accepted by the court as evidence of "a history of violence", which is what you were claiming.
Sure, who's denied that obvious fact?
But this was in Florida, which has a very unique law on the books, specifically about what the police can and can't do in Self Defense cases.
The police say they wanted to, and the DA said no, they didn't have enough evidence to do so.
CNN Live said:
And again, in a Self Defense case in Florida that's a much higher bar than most of us are used to. For instance, several people on this forum have thought that you couldn't use deadly force unless your life was in danger, but that's not the case in Florida where it's just fear of great bodily harm.
Well the courts determine guilt, and of course the police did investigate the crime, they gathered witness statements, the coronor performed an autoposy, they took him into custody and they also had Zimmerman re-enact what happened that night, but you seem to forget they are in Florida, and that UNIQUE Immunity law for Self Defense that I mentioned, is what stands in their way of them making an actual Arrest:
In Florida the law actually prevents him from arresting him if the use of force is as permitted under 776.012 (Self Defense) and more importantly for a small town like Sanford, if they ignore this law they open themselves up to costly civil suits.
What the DA was telling them is that based on the evidence they had, particularly the evidence of the corroborating witness that Zimmerman was on the ground, calling out for help with Martin on top beating him, that the state could not likely prevail against the Self Defense claim under 776.012, since the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of great bodily harm, fell on the State.
Before you go off on the people who are stuck with enforcing the law you really need to get aquainted with the law they are stuck with.
As I mentioned earlier, I've seen a number of Florida cases that boggle the mind, most of them I tracked down via this informative paper on the issue of Florida's quite lenient laws.
It's called:
Making Murder Legal: How Laws Expanding Self-Defense Allow Criminals to "Get Away with Murder" by Elizabeth B. Megale
It's shorter title is:
Don’t Dial 911 – Use .357
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewco...6nRgo86YTe0j_ZOw#search="making murder legal"
Very informative reading.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
And then of course we have the funeral director who handled Martin's body for burial who advised there was no sign that there had been a struggle on Martin's body (ie, no bruising, scratches or any marks that would support Zimmerman's claim that Martin had broken his nose and punched him).. Coupled with the video that shows no mark on Zimmerman whatsoever, except for scuffed knees which is consistent with what one witness saw and that was Zimmerman sitting on Martin's back after having shot him with his knees to either side of Martin's body..
Things seem to be unravelling for Zimmerman..
No. I said that he had been arrested for his violence. And the arrest record reads "RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE - BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER." Your attempts to spin this aren't working.
OK. So you're claiming that Bill Lee was lying. Sounds like it's time to get him off the case and call in an outside investigator (which is what happened, fortunately.)
Spin-o-rama
You have to remember that there are two things going on with his posts. First, he's making the obvious point: George Zimmerman will not, and cannot, be charged in Florida.
Those seeking justice for Trayvon Martin will have to rely on a federal case.
I think Adoucette recognizes this, and that's why the second thing he is doing is struggling so hard to justify George Zimmerman.
I'm still waiting for the picture of the road cone that George Zimmerman might have tripped over:
I mean, sure, it's pretty creative, but, even more than the question of Zimmerman's hospital record for the broken nose (there does not appear to be any) I really, really need to see evidence of these cones.
Or the bit about returning a wallet. But that post also ignores another issue:
Under SYG laws, with someone following you and behaving strangely, as Zimmerman did, why does Trayvon Martin not have the right to stand his ground?
You'll notice that at the point our neighbor made the first punch argument noted above, the question of context and self-defense—
—had already arisen, and I'm still looking around for a direct response to that point. We might note that in #123, when Adoucette responded to that post, he ignored the point altogether.
So while he might claim, as he did in #158, that he "never claimed that [Zimmerman] was innocent" in the context of the difference between not guilty and innocent, he certainly seems determined to argue the point.
There are, fundamentally, two questions: (A) Charging George Zimmerman, and (B) the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman.
In a way, it kind of reminds me of a line in Peter Grier's recent consideration of the case for The Christian Science Monitor:
I would only point out to Mr. Grier that giving Mr. Zimmerman a fair trial—something Trayvon Martin did not get before his death—is actually what people want:
Any trial of George Zimmerman in a court of law will take place in a federal court. The first issue, that Zimmerman will not and cannot be convicted in Florida, is pretty clear. Our neighbor is posturing against the federal case.
Just note his phrasing in #166: "... I understand the difference between not guilty and innocent and have never claimed that Zimmerman was innocent."
It is true that he has not explicitly declared that George Zimmerman is innocent. However, he's putting on a hell of a show trying to make the point. "Cones"? Returning your wallet? Ignoring Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground against someone stalking him?
It's enough, in general, to let him keep digging his own hole; his agenda is clear and the scope of his argument reminds that there is only one acceptable outcome for him; he's trying to tailor reality to fit the foregone conclusion.
There comes a point where one decides to no longer take another seriously, since that other has so blatant an appearance of trying to pull an argumentative con job. It's true that his attempts to spin aren't working; I mean, sure, we can believe that if I'm trying to return your wallet to you, I'm going to cruise along slowly, stalking you, in my car, and then get out and follow you on foot without ever once attempting to hail you and say, "Excuse me, sir, you dropped your wallet."
But those folks dwelling within a more reasonable semblance of reality are well advised to simply leave him to spin and spin and spin until he falls over and pukes.
____________________
Notes:
Blow, Charles M. Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 26, 2012. Television. MSNBC.MSN.com. April 1, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46869236/ns/msnbc_tv/
Greir, Peter. "Trayvon Martin case: Three key questions still not answered". The Christian Science Monitor. March 29, 2012. CSMonitor.com. April 1, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0...-still-not-answered/Was-George-Zimmerman-hurt
Billvon said:
You have to remember that there are two things going on with his posts. First, he's making the obvious point: George Zimmerman will not, and cannot, be charged in Florida.
Those seeking justice for Trayvon Martin will have to rely on a federal case.
I think Adoucette recognizes this, and that's why the second thing he is doing is struggling so hard to justify George Zimmerman.
I'm still waiting for the picture of the road cone that George Zimmerman might have tripped over:
"If you stumble over one of these in the dark, then "f***ing cones" muttered under your breath seems reasonable to me."
I mean, sure, it's pretty creative, but, even more than the question of Zimmerman's hospital record for the broken nose (there does not appear to be any) I really, really need to see evidence of these cones.
Or the bit about returning a wallet. But that post also ignores another issue:
"But if Martin throws the first punch then, based on the one witness to the actual fight, what followed appears to be legal by Florida Self Defense law."
Under SYG laws, with someone following you and behaving strangely, as Zimmerman did, why does Trayvon Martin not have the right to stand his ground?
You'll notice that at the point our neighbor made the first punch argument noted above, the question of context and self-defense—
If a stranger follows you, who you can identify is armed and the police department has said that he's wearing his gun in a holster on his waist, a stranger with a gun follows me, gets within arm distance of me, do I then under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, have the right to meet force with force? And that's a crucial part of this, as well.
(Blow)
(Blow)
—had already arisen, and I'm still looking around for a direct response to that point. We might note that in #123, when Adoucette responded to that post, he ignored the point altogether.
So while he might claim, as he did in #158, that he "never claimed that [Zimmerman] was innocent" in the context of the difference between not guilty and innocent, he certainly seems determined to argue the point.
There are, fundamentally, two questions: (A) Charging George Zimmerman, and (B) the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman.
In a way, it kind of reminds me of a line in Peter Grier's recent consideration of the case for The Christian Science Monitor:
Currently, the Trayvon Martin killing is being litigated in the court of public opinion. Amid the cacophony, it's worth remembering that George Zimmerman's fate may ultimately be determined in a court of law.
I would only point out to Mr. Grier that giving Mr. Zimmerman a fair trial—something Trayvon Martin did not get before his death—is actually what people want:
• Were I a juror, I could not convict. I might have all manner of criticism for Zimmerman's action and the police department's handling of the incident, but as a statutory matter, I could not convict. Despite what I see, the fact is that I cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the obvious suggestions are actually true.
That, of course, is part of why people are so furious about the shooting. The whole idea of shooting someone for looking at you wrong is one of the main concerns about specifically belligerent self-defense laws. It's not like we couldn't see something like this coming. I guess, in the end, some people think that, in consideration of all the real crimes that might have been prevented by this law—that would not have been prevented under a normal self-defense consideration—the sacrifice of Trayvon Martin is worth it. I mean, come on, nobody was really going to say, back when this law was passed, that this wasn't going to happen, right? So, yeah. People knew when this law was passed that there would be sacrificial lambs.
And it's worth it, to them. Some might suggest that it is practical to make this trade, but we'll see how they feel when the victims' advocates are reminding, "All he did was offer to buy her a drink," or, "Why do black people get to say 'nigger'?" (What? Many argue that a woman is culpable in her own rape if she accepts the drink. And, hey, people have been brutally murdered for being "niggers", so watch who you say the word around—they might just stand their ground and shoot you in self-defense.) (#118)
• Politically speaking, I do believe shooting black people is one of the reasons these laws were passed. This sort of situation was entirely predictable, and the problems it brings are not in the slightest unexpected. The idea that these SYG laws would run up against such a test was one of inevitability, and on this occasion, the test is devastating that law. Even the law's sponsors are stuttering as this shot echoes 'round the world. But nobody should actually be surprised. That is, I would find it more surprising that someone might actually have believed this wouldn't happen. (#131)
That, of course, is part of why people are so furious about the shooting. The whole idea of shooting someone for looking at you wrong is one of the main concerns about specifically belligerent self-defense laws. It's not like we couldn't see something like this coming. I guess, in the end, some people think that, in consideration of all the real crimes that might have been prevented by this law—that would not have been prevented under a normal self-defense consideration—the sacrifice of Trayvon Martin is worth it. I mean, come on, nobody was really going to say, back when this law was passed, that this wasn't going to happen, right? So, yeah. People knew when this law was passed that there would be sacrificial lambs.
And it's worth it, to them. Some might suggest that it is practical to make this trade, but we'll see how they feel when the victims' advocates are reminding, "All he did was offer to buy her a drink," or, "Why do black people get to say 'nigger'?" (What? Many argue that a woman is culpable in her own rape if she accepts the drink. And, hey, people have been brutally murdered for being "niggers", so watch who you say the word around—they might just stand their ground and shoot you in self-defense.) (#118)
• Politically speaking, I do believe shooting black people is one of the reasons these laws were passed. This sort of situation was entirely predictable, and the problems it brings are not in the slightest unexpected. The idea that these SYG laws would run up against such a test was one of inevitability, and on this occasion, the test is devastating that law. Even the law's sponsors are stuttering as this shot echoes 'round the world. But nobody should actually be surprised. That is, I would find it more surprising that someone might actually have believed this wouldn't happen. (#131)
Any trial of George Zimmerman in a court of law will take place in a federal court. The first issue, that Zimmerman will not and cannot be convicted in Florida, is pretty clear. Our neighbor is posturing against the federal case.
Just note his phrasing in #166: "... I understand the difference between not guilty and innocent and have never claimed that Zimmerman was innocent."
It is true that he has not explicitly declared that George Zimmerman is innocent. However, he's putting on a hell of a show trying to make the point. "Cones"? Returning your wallet? Ignoring Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground against someone stalking him?
It's enough, in general, to let him keep digging his own hole; his agenda is clear and the scope of his argument reminds that there is only one acceptable outcome for him; he's trying to tailor reality to fit the foregone conclusion.
There comes a point where one decides to no longer take another seriously, since that other has so blatant an appearance of trying to pull an argumentative con job. It's true that his attempts to spin aren't working; I mean, sure, we can believe that if I'm trying to return your wallet to you, I'm going to cruise along slowly, stalking you, in my car, and then get out and follow you on foot without ever once attempting to hail you and say, "Excuse me, sir, you dropped your wallet."
But those folks dwelling within a more reasonable semblance of reality are well advised to simply leave him to spin and spin and spin until he falls over and pukes.
____________________
Notes:
Blow, Charles M. Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 26, 2012. Television. MSNBC.MSN.com. April 1, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46869236/ns/msnbc_tv/
Greir, Peter. "Trayvon Martin case: Three key questions still not answered". The Christian Science Monitor. March 29, 2012. CSMonitor.com. April 1, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0...-still-not-answered/Was-George-Zimmerman-hurt
If Zimmerman followed Martin when it was not necessary, than it is obvious that Zimmerman needs to go to jail. I think what frusterates me about the entire episode is the fact that it would never have gotten such attention had it not been a "white" man going after a "black" teenager. If the press had known he was hispanic in the first place, I doubt it would ever been reported (the surname Zimmerman through them off).
The vast majority, 85%, of violent crimes between blacks and whites is mostly performed by blacks. Blacks are 2 and a half times more likely to commit a race crime than whites. In general, blacks specifically target whites when it comes to violent crimes, and as a matter of fact, are more likely to commit a violent crime on a white person than a black person.
The above statistics are on FBI.gov if you choose to look them up and do the math (the FBI just shows the numbers, you need to do the work). Considering this, where is the outrage when blacks attack whites? You NEVER hear about it in the media. In Chicago, particularly in the North Side, blacks have been attacking whites in large groups while spewing racist epitaths and robbing the victims. The police have refused to call them race crimes.
Again, I justice needs to be served in the crime between Zimmerman/Martin. The press, however, needs to stop the white guilt and race bating, which allows the likes of Jesse Jackson to continue to have relevance.
The vast majority, 85%, of violent crimes between blacks and whites is mostly performed by blacks. Blacks are 2 and a half times more likely to commit a race crime than whites. In general, blacks specifically target whites when it comes to violent crimes, and as a matter of fact, are more likely to commit a violent crime on a white person than a black person.
The above statistics are on FBI.gov if you choose to look them up and do the math (the FBI just shows the numbers, you need to do the work). Considering this, where is the outrage when blacks attack whites? You NEVER hear about it in the media. In Chicago, particularly in the North Side, blacks have been attacking whites in large groups while spewing racist epitaths and robbing the victims. The police have refused to call them race crimes.
Again, I justice needs to be served in the crime between Zimmerman/Martin. The press, however, needs to stop the white guilt and race bating, which allows the likes of Jesse Jackson to continue to have relevance.
No, your claim was that he had a history of violence and you used that Arrest for RO w Violence as evidence to support your claim.
But that fails because the court would not accept the police claim that what occurred was violent, hence the only actual trial was for RO without Violence.
No, he wasn't lying. He just didn't blame the DA for making the decision, but as the State Attorney pointed out, ALL Charging decisions are made by the County DA, not the Police.
I'm curious though.
I've posted a link that discusses the long standing problems with the law that he has to work under, particularly the "Immunity clause" which leaves his dept open to civil charges if he arrests someone who then prevails under that law and yet you continue to ignore that key issue.
Why?
Last edited:
You say it's obvious but I've just posted many replies to those who claim he should have been arrested and charged and convicted, totally ignoring the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt of just fear of great bodily harm" that is the legal bar to use of deadly force in Florida coupled with the "Immunity clause" of the Florida law that, in essence, greatly ups the financial risks for law enforcement arresting someone for whom they can't prevail in court.
Bull, I've not been justifying Zimmeman's actions, I've been looking at it based on how Florida Law applies and apparently you have come to essentially the SAME conclusions I did:
Tiassa said:
So when someone even as socially conscious as you appear to be, says they wouldn't convict, don't you think the State pretty much knew they couldn't prevail with 12 typical Floridians on the jury?
Isn't that what I've been saying all along?
That the DA also knew they couldn't convict under Florida's very lenient Self Defense statute and the County ran the risk of a large civil suit if they went forward due to Florida's immunity clause?
As to the Fed, as I understand it, their laws would only apply against the Sanford Police and the Seminole DA's office, not Zimmerman. And no, I've seen nothing to indicate that the Police or the DA have been racist in this matter.
Now Quad has suggested, that one result of the Feds getting involved is the Florida Law they are operating under could get struck down as Unconstitutional. And while that's possible of course, that won't have any bearing on Zimmerman's actual case.
You said it made no sense, those pictures show why it could make sense.
As could Goons, Coons or Punks.
And as I've pointed out, most of the analysis that I've seen comes down on Punks, not Coons, Goons or Cones. And I've pointed out that not only do I have old ears, but that what I hear is in the minority, so no, I'm not pushing anything. But the KEY point I was making was not claiming I knew what was said but that given the bad audio recording, no one is going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was actually said.
Actually, under Florida Law, both Treyvon and George had the right to "Stand their Ground", ie, not retreat.
So?
Nobody has argued differently (and yes, if you read that critique of the law I posted you will see that's one of the issues with the law, see the "two gangs meeting on the sidewalk example")
BUT Florida law does not allow you claim self-defense if you start the fight and since nobody saw the first punch neither we, nor the State knows who or how the fight started.
And since Zimmerman was carrying the gun legally it is not an agressive act to just walk up to someone with a weapon in it's holster.
So, as I understand it, Martin would not be justified in striking Zimmerman just for walking up and talking under Florida's exisiting laws. But, if he did and even if Treyvon severely injured Zimmerman by doing so, it would then fall on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was at fault for doing so, which without a witness to the first punch would not be a slam dunk for the State either (which has already been noted in this Thread, that under existing Florida Self Defense Law, if no one sees how a fight starts, and if you are the aggressor, it only helps your case if you kill the only other witness to the fight, particularly if you have been injured in the process. I urge you to read the report I linked to. Florida has many such cases that show that the bar to a claim of justified lethal force in Self Defense in Florida is not so much as a high bar one must jump over, but rather a small bump in the road, generally easily stepped over. With the added twist of the accused's ability to sue the State if they try you and come up short of proving it "beyond a reasonable doubt".)
No, as I've said over and over and over, so far we have no witness who claims to have seen how the fight actually started, nor exactly what was going on when the shot was fired, and both of those would be key to determing that difference under Florida law.
And in any other jursidiction but Florida, where they have that immunity clause that protects people against being charged in a self defense case, this would be dealt with in a court.
Indeed, you keep going on about the "Stand Your Ground" portion of the law, but in this actual case, it's not even particularly relevant since no one saw how the fight started. In a public space like this, both had that right.
More to the point, you keep forgetting (conveniently) that I'm the one who posted the scathing legal critique of this law, "DON'T DIAL 911. USE .357" and have from my first post said the law was very lenient and that it needed to be changed.
Oh BS, now you are just making things up.
AFAIK, there is no Federal Murder charge they can bring.
AFAIK, the Federal Civil Rights laws apply to State officials.
Regardless though, I've been discussing this case in relation to the Florida Self Defense statutes, not Federal Law.
But if you are aware of a Federal law that you think Zimmerman could be successfully charged with, then by all means post it for discussion.
I've not ignored anything.
I've posted the link to the Audio, asked people what they heard and posted an Audio Analysis of the Punks vs Coons, I'm not pushing one over the other, just pointing out what is obvious, different people hear different things.
The Wallet reference had nothing specifically to do with Zimmeman, but was simply pointing out to another poster why you can't attack someone, even under Florida's liberal Self Defense laws, for just following you.
I'm not ignoring the fact that Trayvon had the right to stand his ground, it just doesn't impact Zimmerman's claim of self defense since no one saw how the fight started.
See here's what YOU are missing Tiassa, although it is quite possible if the outcome had been different, and Zimmerman lay dead, that Martin would not be charged for a crime because of the same Florida laws that are preventing George from being charged. But even so, that doesn't change how the laws apply to Zimmerman.
And so since I've never once argued that it's good law, don't act like I have.
Last edited:
Could you be any more dishonest Tiassa?
The "Returning the Wallet" example was NOT offered as an example of what happened with Zimmerman.
A number of people have suggested that what Zimmerman did by following Martin was illegal and thus negates Zimmerman's later claim to self-defense.
It wasn't and it doesn't.
That example actually came up in this exchange (my responses are not in quotes):
sifreak21 said:
You mean if I'm following you to return your wallet you can shoot me?
No you can't.
There is no Florida law that makes what Zimmerman did, when he was just following Martin, illegal.
They were both there legally.
But if Martin throws the first punch then, based on the one witness to the actual fight, what followed appears to be legal by Florida Self Defense law.
But if Zimmerman did so (or was shown to have threatened Martin by say pulling his gun) then he loses the self-defense claim.
But no one saw how the fight started, so the State can't presume that Zimmerman started it.
They would have to show he did and they have to do it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".
Which in this case is a high bar.
parmalee said:
Well you could, but since there's a "reasonable" clause, the State wouldn't have much problem showing that shooting someone who is following you to return your wallet is not reasonable, nor is there a reasonable fear of great bodily harm just because someone is following you.
parmalee said:
It's not just fear, it's imminent fear of great bodily harm.
You can't project that far forward to say that just because someone you think someone is following you that you are in imminent fear of great bodily harm.
However if someone is in fact pounding on you, the imminent part is taken care of as is the fear issue.
The law in Florida is VERY lenient toward anyone claiming self defense, but not quite that lenient.
Still, even in the situation you outlined, if the State charged her, it would be the State who has the burden of proof that that fear wasn't reasonable.
So the fact is, even in pretty questionable cases, the self defense claim in Florida isn't easy for the state to overcome.
Give the accused one good corroborating witness that they were being pounded and its almost impossible.
____________
So no Tiassa, this was not framed as a discussion about what Zimmerman did or didn't do that night, but just pointing out that under Florida Law, what Zimmerman did by following Martin, and even asking him what he was doing there, was not legally any different and to also show how lenient the Self-Defense laws are in Florida.
Nope. I said he was arrested for violence. You disagreed. I then produced the arrest record that showed he was arrested for "RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE."
And since that is the third time I pointed that out, I'll assume that your pro-Zimmerman bias does not allow you to accept that and move on.
And arresting decisions are made by the police.
Surely you do not think that if the police came across a murderer with a bloody knife in his hand they would release him until the DA made a decision?
?? Because I agree with you on that. There seems no need to belabor the point.
As an example of how the media is Pushing the racial aspects of this tragic event, we have NBC intentionally editing the 911 call from Zimmerman to make him appear to be a racist. Here's the edited version of Zimmerman's call that appeared on the Network:
And here's the unedited version:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-laun...on-of-misleadingly-edited-zimmerman-911-call/
"This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,”
And here's the unedited version:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-laun...on-of-misleadingly-edited-zimmerman-911-call/