- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,729
- Reaction score
- 2,853
- Location
- Colorado mountains
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Florida Statute 790.06(1)
"He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way"
Searched for a while and couldn't find a statute disallowing this. Even under stalking.(2)
"He followed someone on a dark and rainy night"
And M muttered "Creepy Ass Cracker". Does this mean he loses his right to self defense?(3)
"He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin"
Florida statutes 856.021 & 901.151 are the closest we get to addressing this and they only apply to sworn Law Enforcement.(4)
"He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another"
Getting out of bed to investigate a strange noise in your own home is reasonable behavior. It's not reasonable to continue tailing a suspicious person you think is a criminal and high on drugs into the darkness between those buildings.Okay, stream of consciousness here.....
I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?
It is illegal if it's negligent.Manslaughter is still iffy, since following a suspicious person is not illegal.
It wasn't a GOOD idea, but it wasn't illegal.
But you never know for sure with a jury...
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.Not really. Which of those actions, or even the sum total of all of those actions, would a juror consider as grounds to justify them deserving a severe beating from another person over? Remember that even being a total jerk is not grounds for a "justified" assault/battery. The shooting was in response to the assault/battery, what was the assault/battery justification? Surely not simple negligence justifies a "good ass whooping"?
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.
So we are free to consider anyone (creepy?) "following" us a threat, not report that threat to anyone (except maybe our girlfreind) and then beat them senseless for making that "following" threat? If they manage to successfully defend themselves then they will face criminal charges?
When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.
Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com
Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:
- He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
- He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
- He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
- He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another
None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.
If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.
Why would Trayvon be a threat to GZ.. He wasn't profiling, hunting for black burglars, calling the police, following...
When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.
I believe that Zimm wanted to solicit a violent physical encounter so he could practice his "stand your ground " option with the loaded gun he knew was on his hip .
Where has it been submitted by evidence or testimony that TM asked GZ why he was following him?When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.
I believe that Zimm wanted to solicit a violent physical encounter so he could practice his "stand your ground " option with the loaded gun he knew was on his hip .
TM was not a threat to GZ until he dicided to teach that "creepy ass cracker" what following a law abiding teenager should feel like. At that point TM was more than a mere threat, he was in the act of committig a forcible felony - game on.
yes, but what crime was TM committing when GZ claimed he "went for my phone to call 911"?
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"
It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"
It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.
Rachel's testimony used those words. Zimmerman's version was "you got a problem?"Where has it been submitted by evidence or testimony that TM asked GZ why he was following him?
Legally, I don't know that he does. I don't believe self defense laws exist so that one can provoke another and then kill them.Okay, so let's say that TM felt threatened and that's why he jumped GZ. At what point (if any) does GZ have the right to defend himself?
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"
It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:So we are free to consider anyone (creepy?) "following" us a threat, not report that threat to anyone (except maybe our girlfreind) and then beat them senseless for making that "following" threat? If they manage to successfully defend themselves then they will face criminal charges?
Legally, I don't know that he does. I don't believe self defense laws exist so that one can provoke another and then kill them.
The exact words are not relevant to the fact that all agree that Zimmerman had an opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and why he was following Trayvon.I agree that assertion was made, but GZ did then allegedly reply with his own "adult" question; except that the same witness changed the words of the GZ reply in her sworn statements, one made in front of TM's mother (strange witness interviewing procedure?) and the other in open court - yet you seem to accept this assertion/allegation as a "fact". GZ's statement did not agree with that assertion, his version had a completly different "dialog" as I recall. Many pieces of this puzzle are far from clear, and will forever remain so. You have reasonable doubt about GZ's version, I have reasonable doubt as to the state's witness version - only the jury can make the legal call.
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:
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?