Question mostly for the "justice for Trayvon" folks........

[Oceandan]

I know the LAST thing we need is another thread......but after sleeping I have this final question I'd like to get feedback.

What would satisfy you in this case?

The beat down had just continued until the police arrive. In this case do you believe TM would/should have been charged with a crime?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ needed to be hospitalized. Again do you think TM would/should have been charged with a crime if this was the outcome?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ ends up in a coma.

TM gets GZ's gun and kills him.

Which of these scenarios would make you most feel "justice" was done for what in your mind is this "creepy ass cracker" armed with a firearm, hunting down this innocent angelic child who just wanted some skittles cuz he had the munchies?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I know the LAST thing we need is another thread......but after sleeping I have this final question I'd like to get feedback.

What would satisfy you in this case?

The beat down had just continued until the police arrive. In this case do you believe TM would/should have been charged with a crime?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ needed to be hospitalized. Again do you think TM would/should have been charged with a crime if this was the outcome?

The beat down continued until the police arrive and GZ ends up in a coma.

TM gets GZ's gun and kills him.

Which of these scenarios would make you most feel "justice" was done for what in your mind is this "creepy ass cracker" armed with a firearm, hunting down this innocent angelic child who just wanted some skittles cuz he had the munchies?

Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".

 

[Lutherf]

Why should Trayvon have been charged with any crime? You've heard the pundits, if somebody is following you and you're creeped out then you have every right in the world to confront them, pummel them and, if necessary kill them. The guy doesn't need to touch you or say anything to you. He just needs to be creepy and you're good to go. That's the law.....apparently.

 

[Excon]

Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".

That just means the Texas law is messed up.


The Florida law requires a reasonable belief. There is no reason for any person to take their violence that far to cause such a belief.

 

[blackjack50]

Although I am not a TM fan, I see that the Floriduh SYG law has one very serious flaw - it still applies to the initial aggressor. Do not miscontrue this as being related to this specific case, as the prosecution had presented no hard evidence that GZ had started the "confrontation". This flaw allows and armed citizen, in Floriduh, to pick a fight with anyone and, if they do not prevail unarmed, then they may simply "surrender" (call off their attack) and if the opponent does not cease their "defense" immediately they may still legally shoot (or stab) them. The Texas law makes this scenario impossible, as the initial aggressor may use only non-lethal force in their "defense".

As a Florida CCW license holder I have to say you are wrong on that. You can't instigate the confrontation. Stand your ground still means that you do not have a duty to retreat:m. Look at #3

 

[Excon]

As a Florida CCW license holder I have to say you are wrong on that. You can't instigate the confrontation. Stand your ground still means that you do not have a duty to retreat:m. Look at #3

View attachment 67150270

 

[ttwtt78640]

That just means the Texas law is messed up.


The Florida law requires a reasonable belief. There is no reason for any person to take their violence that far to cause such a belief.

I disagree. Many fights end up with one or both parties having lumps, bumps, cuts. scrapes and even fractures that are "serious" yet not life threatening. What the Floriduh law does is to allow the initial (armed) aggressor to also act as "referee" and decide when they have had enough, if the other party persists after their "its over call" (by the initial aggressor) then they may be legally executed citing only the reasonable belief (by the initial aggressor) that they could be seriously harmed if the fighting was allowed to continue.

 

[niff]

T's so-called parents and the entire Black population want vengeance not justice.
The fact is T's parents never gaveg a SFF what T was getting up to. The old lady had kicked T out of the house before for behaving pretty much the way the old man was behaving when she kicked his *** out years ago. T was basically living with his aunt and uncle and had zero parental guidance. Who paid for T's illegal tats? Where was he getting the money get pot? Where was he getting the money to become a budding illegal/stolen hand gun dealer? Let's not be silly and claim T was ever going to have anything to do with airplanes except maybe to use one to smuggle dope into the country.

Virtually the entire Black population wanted OJ to get away with a double murder of two 'Whites'. Virtually the entire female Black population were delighted that a 'snow-bunny' had her 'White' throat slit. (The fact that the first thing virtually every professional Black athlete goes out and buys himself a 100 pound 5' natural 'White-blond' snow bunny with his signing bonus is the subject of another discussion.)
Now the entire Black population would have been happy to see a Black man get away with committing felony assault on a "Cracker".
News flash! This time the young Black man was so stupid he couldn't understand that attacking some dude for simply checking out where he was going in a strange neighborhood in the rain in the dark in an area plagued with crimes committed by 'bros' who looked just like himself could get himself shot.
But not to worry. Tracy, in his grief, and yet another of his 'baby-mammas' have already made a copy of T. Baby's name? "Teetwo".

 

[ttwtt78640]

As a Florida CCW license holder I have to say you are wrong on that. You can't instigate the confrontation. Stand your ground still means that you do not have a duty to retreat:m. Look at #3

View attachment 67150270

It is this part that I object to:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[MaggieD]

It is this part that I object to:

If you look at it exaggerated, it makes more sense:

A road rage incident. Driver #1 gets out of his car, walks up to the rolled-down driver's side window and punches Driver #2 in the face.

If Driver #1 walks back to his car and gets in, Driver #2 cannot pull a gun from his glove compartment, get out of his car and shoot Driver #1.

If, on the other hand, Driver #1 continues punching and hitting Driver #2, Driver #1 is justified in shooting him.

As it applies to Zimmerman, had Trayvon Martin punched him in the nose and continued on his way, Zimmerman would have been guilty of murder had he gotten up, went after him and shot him.

 

[sharon]

Why should Trayvon have been charged with any crime? You've heard the pundits, if somebody is following you and you're creeped out then you have every right in the world to confront them, pummel them and, if necessary kill them. The guy doesn't need to touch you or say anything to you. He just needs to be creepy and you're good to go. That's the law.....apparently.

Idiot George could have spoken up.. Any cop would have.. any security guard would have..

Instead.. we have a dead boy.

http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712

 

[Excon]

I disagree. Many fights end up with one or both parties having lumps, bumps, cuts. scrapes and even fractures that are "serious" yet not life threatening. What the Floriduh law does is to allow the initial (armed) aggressor to also act as "referee" and decide when they have had enough, if the other party persists after their "its over call" (by the initial aggressor) then they may be legally executed citing only the reasonable belief (by the initial aggressor) that they could be seriously harmed if the fighting was allowed to continue.

Disagree all you want. No person should be able to put another in fear of great bodily harm or loss of life. Whether they be the initial aggressor or not.
That is my bottom line.

And what you are saying could happen is so far gone along the spectrum of possibilities that it isn't reasonable to even consider.
And don't forget that the evidence has to comport with the claim.
It isn't reasonable to think they could show such belief unless it actually happened.
A fight (mutual aggression), would appear as such. A D.A. isn't just going to buy into the persons claim unless it comports with the evidence.
And with mutual aggression it would be far more easier to show ill-will, hatred and spite.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you look at it exaggerated, it makes more sense:

A road rage incident. Driver #1 gets out of his car, walks up to the rolled-down driver's side window and punches Driver #2 in the face.

If Driver #1 walks back to his car and gets in, Driver #2 cannot pull a gun from his glove compartment, get out of his car and shoot Driver #1.

If, on the other hand, Driver #1 continues punching and hitting Driver #2, Driver #1 is justified in shooting him.

As it applies to Zimmerman, had Trayvon Martin punched him in the nose and continued on his way, Zimmerman would have been guilty of murder had he gotten up, went after him and shot him.

What?

My road rage scenario is this:

Driver #1 hits driver #2 seated in their, car as you described, Driver #2 gets out, is HUGE, and it is a full on fight, a crowd of witnesses forms to watch, Driver #1 is losing that fight badly (has suffered "serious" injuries) and says that he has had enough, Driver #2 hits hits/shoves driver #1 one last time but Driver #1 then "legally" shoots driver #2 - since driver #2 "continued" the fight (resuting in "serious" injuries) that driver had #1 started but had declared over before that last "aggression" by driver #2.

 

[Lutherf]

Idiot George could have spoken up.. Any cop would have.. any security guard would have..

Instead.. we have a dead boy.

http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712

Right....and because he didn't say anything Trayvon had the right to beat him and Zimmerman had no right to defend himself. I've heard that theory.

 

[MaggieD]

What?

My road rage scenario is this:

Driver #1 hits driver #2 seated in their, car as you described, Driver #2 gets out, is HUGE, and it is a full on fight, a crowd of witnesses forms to watch, Driver #1 is losing that fight badly (has suffered "serious" injuries) and says that he has had enough, Driver #2 hits hits/shoves driver #1 one last time but Driver #1 then "legally" shoots driver #2 - since driver #2 "continued" the fight (resuting in "serious" injuries) that driver had #1 started but had declared over before that last "aggression" by driver #2.

Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot.

 

[Lutherf]

Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot.

Just from personal experience, Maggie, it's not normal to go after a guy's balls when you're wrestling around on the ground. Once you're both horizontal nut grabbing is just gay.

 

[MaggieD]

Just from personal experience, Maggie, it's not normal to go after a guy's balls when you're wrestling around on the ground. Once you're both horizontal nut grabbing is just gay.

:rofl

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ha! I think we'd have another trial in your scenerio just as confusing as Zimmerman's. Our self-defense laws need tweaking.

##### This is off the subject, but I've always wondered why Zimmerman didn't grab and squeeze Martiin's testicles. Wouldn't that stop a guy? Just curious because it's the only defense I can think of if I personally were 'on the bottom' in that scenerio. Please resist the obvious cheap shot.

My point exactly. If you start the fight, then you should be limitted to non-lethal force, period; the Texas law says just that.

 

[niff]

Idiot George could have spoken up.. Any cop would have.. any security guard would have..

Instead.. we have a dead boy.

This, Courtesy of MSNBC, Is Trayvon Martin's Dead Body. Get Angry.

Yup. Good for George. Now some mentally retarded underage 'baby-mamma' ain't going to have the privilege of having T do to her what he did to George b/c she wouldn't turn over her pocket money to him. Good for George.

 

[Oceandan]

Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?

 

[ric27]

Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?

Most definitely....prosecuted for assault and battery

 

[niff]

Most definitely....prosecuted for assault and battery

Technically 'Felony Assault'. He would have been back on the street in 24 hours and George would likely have been in a coma.

 

[MaggieD]

Good discussion folks. However, maybe I should reduce the question to, had the police arrived prior to the gun shot, should/would TM been charged with any crime?

I doubt it. Mutual combat. Hard to sort out.

Unless one or the other of them decided to press charges, game over. If one did, the other would do the same, in my opinion.

Both of you idiots! Go home!

 

[ric27]

Technically 'Felony Assault'. He would have been back on the street in 24 hours and George would likely have been in a coma.

Just for legal reference

Since M is not yet an adult...I'd say a suspended sentence and most likely his rap sheet expunged/erased when he hits 18

 

[spanky]

The OP asks a question specifically for supporters of TM. 24 responses, 23 from Zimm supporters...heheh.