Is Zimmerman Guilty W/O The Stand Your Ground Law?[W: 217, 225]

[Pinkie]

If there were no "stand your ground" law, would Zimmerman be guilty on the facts as you understand them?

IMO, no: I'm still not clear on what happened between them. It's possible that self-defense would exonerate Zimmerman even though he clearly (unreasonably, possibly even illegally) provoked Martin.

What say you?

 

[MaggieD]

If there were no "stand your ground" law, would Zimmerman be guilty on the facts as you understand them?

IMO, no: I'm still not clear on what happened between them. It's possible that self-defense would exonerate Zimmerman even though he clearly (unreasonably, possibly even illegally) provoked Martin.

What say you?

His attorney doesn't even know if he's going to ask for dismissal based on SYG. That's still under consideration, as I understand it. In my opinion, Zimmerman will be judged based on regular old self-defense laws. Since they are pushing for Murder 2, unless the jury is allowed to reduce the charge to Manslaughter or something less, I think he'll be found not guilty. But. If it weren't for his actions, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

He should have stayed in his car.

 

[Thunder]

SYG defends Trayvon Martin's actions, not Zimm's.

 

[MaggieD]

SYG defends Trayvon Martin's actions, not Zimm's.

I rather agree with this, actually...if one thing can be proven by the state:

If I were walking home alone in the dark and noticed, first, a car following me and then a person leaving that car and following me, I would be frightened. Of course, I, OTOH, would have hung up with my boyfriend and called 911. If it could be proven that Zimmerman actually caught up with Martin, you have a good point. But I don't think the state is going to be able to prove that that's what happened.

 

[Grim17]

If there were no "stand your ground" law, would Zimmerman be guilty on the facts as you understand them?

IMO, no: I'm still not clear on what happened between them. It's possible that self-defense would exonerate Zimmerman even though he clearly (unreasonably, possibly even illegally) provoked Martin.

What say you?

According to Florida law, Zimmerman had every right to defend himself with deadly force based on his account of what took place. Since there is no evidence that has yet surfaced, which contradicts his account of what happened that night, I would say the prosecution is going to have one hell of a hard time convincing a jury it wasn't self defense.

 

[Thunder]

I rather agree with this, actually...if one thing can be proven by the state:

If I were walking home alone in the dark and noticed, first, a car following me and then a person leaving that car and following me, I would be frightened. Of course, I, OTOH, would have hung up with my boyfriend and called 911. If it could be proven that Zimmerman actually caught up with Martin, you have a good point. But I don't think the state is going to be able to prove that that's what happened.

GZ stalked TM in a car and on foot.

The, TM lost GZ by running away.

Then apparently, TM came back to GZ to find out why he was being stalked in a car and on foot.

He asked GZ this honest question, and GZ refused to answer. He instead said "what are you doing here!" and reached into his pocket.

Having been stalked by this strange guy on foot & in a car, in a state where MANY folks carry handguns, Martin could have easily assumed that GZ was reaching for a weapon...so he struck first in self-defense.

and it turns out GZ did have a gun, and used it to kill Martin.

was GZ's action in self-defense? we don't know.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think SYG is irrelevant - he's guilty regardless. He pursued Martin and instigated the entire incident.

Case closed in my view.

He should have stayed his punk ass in his ****ing car like a good little boy

 

[Kreton]

I think SYG is irrelevant - he's guilty regardless. He pursued Martin and instigated the entire incident.

Case closed in my view.

He should have stayed his punk ass in his ****ing car like a good little boy

Yea. People need to stay in their houses, mind their own business, stop caring about their neighbors and stop trying to be a community. It is making things tough on the criminals when people pay attention to the things going on in their neighborhoods. Bunch of jerks for trying to watch out of their communities if you ask me.

 

[Pinkie]

I think SYG is irrelevant - he's guilty regardless. He pursued Martin and instigated the entire incident.

Case closed in my view.

He should have stayed his punk ass in his ****ing car like a good little boy

I imagine no one agrees with you more today than Zimmerman himself. This is why I asked the question: because I strongly suspect I have neighbors who behave just as he did, and it's a nine days' wonder to me that no one has been killed here yet. (There are many senior citizens in my neighborhood and some of their homes have been robbed lately.)

Does a fear -- reasonable or not -- justify vigilatism?

 

[joko104]

SYG defends Trayvon Martin's actions, not Zimm's.

No, it is Stand YOUR Ground, not go take the other person's ground. TM approaching GZ eliminated "stand your ground."

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Yea. People need to stay in their houses, mind their own business, stop caring about their neighbors and stop trying to be a community. It is making things tough on the criminals when people pay attention to the things going on in their neighborhoods. Bunch of jerks for trying to watch out of their communities if you ask me.

Like I haven't heard it all before about this case - obviously I have my view and you have yours and we won't be changing anytime soon.

 

[Tigger]

Does a fear -- reasonable or not -- justify vigilatism?

Depends on what it's a fear of.....

If it's a fear of immediate personal harm and possible death, yes.
If it's fear of robbery in your own home (not outside id), I'd say Yes (though most state's laws would disagree)

 

[Thunder]

No, it is Stand YOUR Ground, not go take the other person's ground. TM approaching GZ eliminated "stand your ground."

that's only if GZ was standing still and TM approached him.

 

[Grim17]

I rather agree with this, actually...if one thing can be proven by the state:

If I were walking home alone in the dark and noticed, first, a car following me and then a person leaving that car and following me, I would be frightened. Of course, I, OTOH, would have hung up with my boyfriend and called 911. If it could be proven that Zimmerman actually caught up with Martin, you have a good point. But I don't think the state is going to be able to prove that that's what happened.

Too many facts make that a very tough sell Maggie. The 911 call makes it clear that for several minutes Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was, and during that time Martin had a clear path to his fathers home, but chose not to go there. The fact he could have either called police, called his father, or had his girlfriend call police, but never did so, or expressed any interest in doing so, tells me Martin wasn't frightened and wasn't fearful of Zimmerman... Remember, his girlfriend even recommended that he run, to which he replied, he was not going to run.

That's a pretty clear indication that Martin either made the conscience decision to confront Zimmerman (as testified to by Zimmerman), or at the very least, welcomed the idea of a confrontation.

Watch now as the usual crowd jumps in to argue against this post, and does so with a pile of irrelevant information, baseless speculation, and not one damned thing to directly contradict anything I wrote... Enter sharon and thunder.

 

[Tigger]

that's only if GZ was standing still and TM approached him.

It takes two people to have an altercation. At the moment TM "lost" GZ, he should have simply headed to his destination by the most expedient route, or left the area in search of a means to contact the authorities. The moment he goes looking for GZ he loses a lot of the ability to claim "self defense"

 

[Grim17]

Does a fear -- reasonable or not -- justify vigilatism?

Of course not, but there's nothing to suggest that was the case here. Vigilanteism is the premeditated act of taking the law into your own hands for the purpose of vengance... Calling the police as Zimmerman did, is a direct contradiction to someone involved in Vigilanteism.

 

[Pinkie]

Of course not, but there's nothing to suggest that was the case here. Vigilanteism is the premeditated act of taking the law into your own hands for the purpose of vengance... Calling the police as Zimmerman did, is a direct contradiction to someone involved in Vigilanteism.

If all he had done was call the police there would never have been a death. Don't be coy, Grim. We have a long series of case law on "stop and frisk" laws for the conduct of police officers -- why should any private citizen get MORE rights to act against their fellow citizen than the cops do?

 

[sharon]

Of course not, but there's nothing to suggest that was the case here. Vigilanteism is the premeditated act of taking the law into your own hands for the purpose of vengance... Calling the police as Zimmerman did, is a direct contradiction to someone involved in Vigilanteism.

Trayvon ASKED George, Why are you following me?

George was too stupid to answer a civil question.

 

[Pinkie]

Trayvon ASKED George, Why are you following me?

George was too stupid to answer a civil question.

Chances are, Zimmerman was over-excited. This is why I object to untrained but armed citizens "patrolling" my neighborhood.

 

[Pinkie]

It takes two people to have an altercation. At the moment TM "lost" GZ, he should have simply headed to his destination by the most expedient route, or left the area in search of a means to contact the authorities. The moment he goes looking for GZ he loses a lot of the ability to claim "self defense"

So, if a man follows me home and I avoid him, that is fine. But if I try and find him so I can report him to the cops, that should be grounds for killing me?

 

[sharon]

Chances are, Zimmerman was over-excited. This is why I object to untrained but armed citizens "patrolling" my neighborhood.

Yeah.. I think GZ was very much "over-excited".

 

[Grim17]

If all he had done was call the police there would never have been a death. Don't be coy, Grim. We have a long series of case law on "stop and frisk" laws for the conduct of police officers -- why should any private citizen get MORE rights to act against their fellow citizen than the cops do?

First, I'm not being coy, just stating the facts. Second, what evidence did you come across that indicates that Zimmerman was the aggressor and attempted to take the law into his own hands, as you seem to be indicating?

 

[Kreton]

Like I haven't heard it all before about this case - obviously I have my view and you have yours and we won't be changing anytime soon.

good point.

 

[Kreton]

So, if a man follows me home and I avoid him, that is fine. But if I try and find him so I can report him to the cops, that should be grounds for killing me?

It is if you decide to attempt to beat him to death. If you want to equate parts of the story, try to equate them all.

 

[Grim17]

So, if a man follows me home and I avoid him, that is fine. But if I try and find him so I can report him to the cops, that should be grounds for killing me?

Where did you get the idea that's what he was saying?