- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 34,990
- Reaction score
- 19,759
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's just so not about gun laws. at all. afaict.Great point, and I've been thinking a lot about what this case says about gun laws and owner ship, but I don't want to derail the thread.
I have to say, it seems like the usual pro-NRA folks have stayed out of this tread, and I applaud them for that.
This is sick.Martin, clearly the superior and many of us see the obviousness of that, didn't know he had brought fist and feet to what became a gun fight. That the old guy might have a gun is one reason 17 year olds shouldn't get too cocky about wanting beating up old guys that are annoying him.
I don't think is about gun ownership, I think this is about a psychotic individual who used a gun irresponsibly. Just like some people use cars irresponsibly, some people use guns irresponsibly. I'm all for gun restrictions based on severe mental disorders and violent criminal histories, but you can't stop every dangerous person from getting a gun legally anymore than you can stop every dangerous person from getting a car legally.Great point, and I've been thinking a lot about what this case says about gun laws and owner ship, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Actually, most of them have been in the thread and have criticized Zimmerman for his actions.I have to say, it seems like the usual pro-NRA folks have stayed out of this tread, and I applaud them for that.
Do you seriously not see the threat that a person who follows innocent people down the street and then ends up killing them is to society?
It's just so not about gun laws. at all. afaict.
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1)
A person who uses force as permitted in s.776.012, s.776.013, or s.776.031is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force
However, if you read .012, .013, and .031, you see that Mr Zimmerman does not necessarily qualify under these statues.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
Furthermore, the prohibiting of arrest does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be where they are:
“The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in.”
And more importantly, and most disingenuously, the person is not exempt under the claimed statute from arrest if they “Initially provoke(s) the use of force against himself or herself.”
The person who provokes the force against themselves is not protected by the statue the City Manager quoted:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
You are trying real hard to spin this.
Trayvon attacked Zimmerman from behind.
That is the evidence we have, and that definitely is not standing your ground.
It's just so not about gun laws. at all. afaict.
[City Manager Offers Misleading Justification for Not Arresting Travyon Martin’s Shooter]When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to
Florida Statute 776.032 :776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1)
A person who uses force as permitted in s.776.012, s.776.013, or s.776.031is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force
However, if you read .012, .013, and .031, you see that Mr Zimmerman does not necessarily qualify under these statues.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
Furthermore, the prohibiting of arrest does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be where they are:
“The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in.”
And more importantly, and most disingenuously, the person is not exempt under the claimed statute from arrest if they “Initially provoke(s) the use of force against himself or herself.”
The person who provokes the force against themselves is not protected by the statue the City Manager quoted:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
A lot of words, but they don't mean much. "Guilty of creating a deadly environment" and "deadly scenario." That statute isn't on the books in Florida. What state are you in?
Look, you can think Zimmerman is the scum of the earth, a true maniac, paranoid, bigoted, low intelligent wacko. But that doesn't make a winnable criminal case.
I like your phrase of "the hunted becomes the hunter." I think that is EXACTLY what happened.
Sooooo... we get to really is the few seconds fact-question of the entire case - and only Zimmerman the living witness that knows what that fact is - if in the panic even he does. In the few seconds of the fight, how did the gun get into that picture and, exactly, the "scrambling for the gun."
MAYBE forensics will give a strong indication (distance of the shot - and the angle of it.) Maybe a voice print can tell us who was shouting and shouting what? Or maybe only Karnak the Great can ever know. If the latter is what is true, it is a "not guilty." Just like innocent people get convicted sometimes, even more times guilty people go free simply for lack of sufficient evidence.
When I SEEMINGLY argue FOR Zimmerman, really I am arguing against some slogan, premise or overall concept I disagree with. And we disagree about neighborhood crime watch as an example.
But to get a conviction - I mean a legitimate one because I think this now soooo far into politics that may not be possible - requires certainties and absolutes.
We can't know what we can't know. We can't know what we aren't told. For example, did the police ask Ziimmerman to take a polygraph test? Did they do a drug test on Martin? Zimmerman? Were I the defense attorney for Zimmerman, I'd want him to refuse a polygraph. But I would DEMAND a hair sample - AND FAST - of Martin's hair hoping to find out if it indicated pot, cocaine, and certainty if it indicated meth. Etc. Do you think that would be relevant? If Martin showed meth usage - a drug that tends to make people feel like superman and of violent outbursts? Or pot, that can make some people paranoid?
I didn't write that to slam Martin, just some of the almost countless "tool" and "issues" and question marks the defense can raise - noting the defense doesn't have to prove anything, only raise question marks.
Without reading the 100 + pages of this thread, allow me to chime in and say that this is horrifying, and very very sad for the family of the young man....Zimmerman needs to be arrested immediately before this situation gets out of hand. However, this doesn't, and shouldn't be the catalyst for the calls of gun control, unfortunately the is no longer about the young man killed as much as it is about the loud mouth, publicity whores, and race baitiing poverty pimps like Sharpton....
j-mac
There is zero evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of anything.
All that's known is that a confrontation ensued--the details of that confrontation are unknown and it's merely one person's words against another.
People like sharpton are just acting like idiots or hypocrites. If a Black man had used a gun in self-defense against one or more White people, i. e. KKK members, skinheads, etc. there wouldn't be a peep from him.
The Black community in Florida needs to wake up and see the big picture--that the existing law in Florida that protects those like Zimmerman protects them as well.
Zimmerman needs to be arrested immediately before this situation gets out of hand. However, this doesn't, and shouldn't be the catalyst for the calls of gun control, unfortunately the is no longer about the young man killed as much as it is about the loud mouth, publicity whores, and race baitiing poverty pimps like Sharpton....
j-mac
Now they say that. But, I think the law was working as intended by the authors until it became an issue in the USA.... The law as interpreted by a judge may be one thing, but the authors of the SYG law say it wasn't their intent to protect someone in a case like this.
On what charge? For being an asshole?
Charges can sometimes take a while. The initial arresting charge can change over the course of several hours....but at this stage (close to a month)
I don't see it
On what charge? For being an asshole?
Charges can sometimes take a while. The initial arresting charge can change over the course of several hours....but at this stage (close to a month)
I don't see it
If that were an actual charge, depending on the timing, most of us at one time or another would end up in the hoosgow....heh, heh....
lolAt about the 2:10 Mark WE CAN HEAR THE CAR OPEN AND THEN THE WIND AS ZIMMERMAN STARTS TO MOVE ON FOOT.
At 2:22 he say "F-ing coons" and then the POLICER OFFICER tells him "We don't' need you to [go after him]."
THE WING CONTINUES TO BLOW AFTER THIS, and ZIMMERMAN IS PANTING, meaning he ignores the police.
Yes you should.You should really get better informed about this case before posting in this thread.
Wonderful!Riiiiight. I think you are the one mis-characterizing the situation.
Your narrative is as clear as mud.The narrative is pretty clear.
Wrong again.being stalked and harassed
Wrong again.carrying a weapon in a situation he shouldnt have been,
Wrong again.following a kid he had no business following
This statement has been corrected over and over again, so I can only assume you are choosing to lie.after being told by a real officer not to,
Wrong again.who was carrying a weapon in a situation he shouldnt have been,
The suspicious behavior did exist.for suspicious behavior that didnt exist.
Right. Which is consistent with the girlfriends statement.The only evidence you have that Martin was the attacker is Zimmermsns statement.
Right. But his statement is consistent with the girlfriends statement.NO OTHER evidence establishes who started the altercation.
I am saying that his statement is consistent with all the other evidence.You are accepting Zims word on the subject.
No. I have been, and are saying, his statement is consistent with the evidence.You know, the guy who's facing a murder rap if its not self defense.
Can't say for sure he lied.
You're saying for sure he didn't.
Maybe it is you who has seen to many movies?The guy with the smoking gun is ALWAYS suspect. How many movies do you think Zims seen where someone injures themselves to lend credibility to their story?
An actual investigation was already done.Evidently an actual.investigation is being done.
Suits me.
You have a very biased and vivid imagination.Actually, it appears that Martin knocked a man to the ground who was chasing him with a gun. Then, as he was calling for help, Zimmerman shot Martin to shut him up.
The teenage boy walking his dog remembers the screams for 'help' stopping right after the gunshot.
Although, Zimmerman has a pretty high voice, he could have sounded like an adolescent--but if Zimmerman had the gun, wouldn't he be screaming "back up" or "get away from me" while warding Martin off with the gun.
It's more logical that Martin knocked down an armed man chasing him at night and then called for help, afraid he would be shot. Which is exactly what happened. Zimmerman was sick of people 'getting away' and he hated the 'f-ing coons.'
You realize that this does not matter?Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com
The law as interpreted by a judge may be one thing, but the authors of the SYG law say it wasn't their intent to protect someone in a case like this.
Ummm, yes there is.Ummm, there is no evidence of that.
Tell me Airborn, how do you get that it was an order as in he "told" him from the following statement?The 911 tape is pretty clear in that the 911 dispatch officer clearly told Zimmerman to stop pursuing the young man.
That statement, as applied in general, without other evidence is absolutely correct.There is no larger more rational and sound significant point than this!Do you seriously not see the threat that a person who follows innocent people down the street and then ends up killing them is to society?
and it will be ignored buy the dishonest.
If you disagree with this point then basically you are an idiot beyond the belief
because to not acknowledge this point basically means that anybody could kill anybody by letting themselves get their ass kicked, its ridiculous.
Tell me Airborn, how do you get that it was an order as in he "told" him from the following statement?
The 911 operator tells Zimmerman the following: "We don't need you to do that.".
That is not be "told" to do anything.
That is not an order.
It is a suggestion. A suggestion from someone who has no authority over the caller.
So saying he was "told", is just simply wrong.
An actual investigation was already done.
But for the possible "coon" thing and a Fed Civ Rights violation stemming from that, if this current investigation only has the same evidence then they are most likely going to come to the same conclusion.
If the evidence isn't the same, there then may be a change. We will see.
That statement, as applied in general, without other evidence is absolutely correct.
But it does not apply to this case because of the evidence.
Two can play this bs game. Watch.
Anybody who believes it does apply to this case, is ignoring the evidence and is an idiot beyond belief.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?