Trayvon Martin Case

Ok I may have set myself up for these comments, let me start over, he shot an unarmed man who he had been following, after a confrontation with the man who He had been following, after the altercation occurred. This was wrong, but not because of race, or gun laws, or legit like that, but because some guy thought he was big because he had a gun. I think he should get punished for it. Seriously.
 
To a certain point, I agree with what has been said here. If I am minding my own business and someone goes out of their way to cause me or my family harm, I will prolly shoot you. However if I go out looking for a fight/trouble and it finds me I think I would throw fists before bullets.
 
There's a whole ton of fail in this case. Z may have placed himself in a bad position but he wasn't doing anything illegal. If Martin went after him and an altercation ensued, now both parties are at fault IMO. Once it escalates beyond words, if Z thought his life was in danger then he was within his right to use deadly force. A chain of events and no one broke the chain and now someone is dead.

I don't think the State can prove 2nd Degree murder and I honestly don't think they can make manslaughter stick unless the jury is a bag of shit like Casey Anthony's jury.

I'll bet FL's Stand Your Ground law is modified before this is over with to include something about pursuit, i.e. putting yourself in a bad situation like Z did.

It doesn't matter his this case ends, we're all going to lose something as a result.
 
Ok I may have set myself up for these comments, let me start over, he shot an unarmed man who he had been following, after a confrontation with the man who He had been following, after the altercation occurred. This was wrong, but not because of race, or gun laws, or legit like that, but because some guy thought he was big because he had a gun. I think he should get punished for it. Seriously.
So... do you have some sort of inside scoop on the facts or are you simply parroting the conjecture that has been masquerading as news and combining it with a dose of your own version of the facts?
 
How else can you explain such a fucking stupid incident to have ever happened. I think this whole case is absurd. People are so quick to polarize what, in this case, shouldn't be..
 
Ok I may have set myself up for these comments, let me start over, he shot an unarmed man who he had been following, after a confrontation with the man who He had been following, after the altercation occurred. This was wrong, but not because of race, or gun laws, or legit like that, but because some guy thought he was big because he had a gun. I think he should get punished for it. Seriously.
Thanks for the clarification. policemedic summed it up best. I can't describe it better

I agree with the underlined part being a strong possibility. This is what will test the new law. As I have said before he created his own life or death circumstance that required him to use deadly force. There are more than a few cowboys out there that think they can do things there own way and get justice or want to be a cop so bad they try to act like one. If that was the case in this instance then yes he should be punished for it IF it can be legally justified. Changing any laws at this point is ridiculous because the case will be judged by the laws in place at the time.

The problem with the stand your ground law is that it (like many laws) have unintended side effects. I will paint a true picture. The area I used to work in had a good old fashion gangland drive by shooting between two rival gangs. Gang A was upset about an earlier incident and decided to get revenge on gang B. Gang A decided to get revenge and do a drive by when they found members from B. Now in the process of this drive by a 15 year old member (verified as a hardcore member) of A was in the car and ate some lead from B who returned fire with AK47s. Keep in mind that at the time B was in a public place and had a legal right to be there and their guns were in their car. The members from B were all charged with murder. One (from B) took a plea deal before trial and two others (also from B) had sharp attorneys that invoked "Stand Your Ground". The judge sided with the attorney and the two smart ones had their murder charges dropped. Did I like it? Absolutely not. Though I can't ignore the fact that the guys from B were not doing anything illegal and had a right to be where they were.

Both sides are dirt bags. Given. Even the 15 year old. When he was wheeled into the ER for emergency surgery a small caliber handgun fell out of his waist band. He was up to no good and paid for it. He was well known by law enforcement and the school system for criminal activity. The laws are in place to protect everyone. Good and bad. It's not always ideal but it is the best set in place at humanity's level of evolution. This incident is a mess and I am sure there were screw ups all around. Overall it's going to be a nightmare to sort it out.
 
For comparison purposes, here's the PA stand your ground/castle doctrine statute. The most relevant portions are in red and bolded. There is also another statute that provides civil immunity for using force under this law.

As RB quite correctly stated above, the PA law that governs police use of force is not substantially different in the core principles from this one. It just specifically addresses the issue of using force in an arrest or to prevent escape, suicide, etc.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or

(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does not apply if:

(i) the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee;

(ii) the person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the protective force is used;

(iii) the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

(iv) the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

(2.4) The exception to the duty to retreat set forth under paragraph (2.3) does not apply if the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

(2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit:

(i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or

(ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.

(2.6) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3) Except as otherwise required by this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term “criminal activity” means conduct which is a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is related to the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used.
 
who is attacked

I liked your whole post Policemedic and I think the $20 million dollar question for the jury is how they judge Zimmerman's actions in pursuing the kid. The prosecutor will obviously argue we may never know exactly what started the confrontation but even if Martin did attack Zimmerman he would never have been attacked in the first place if he hadn't been chasing Martin.

When I think about this case and assuming the generally reported facts are accurate. If I was in Martin's shoes and someone was following me as I walked down the road and they were in a car. I would have ran between houses first looking for cover and second to find out what the intentions were of the person following me. I'm certainly not going to try and confront someone in a vehicle when I'm on foot even if I was armed. If they left there vehicle coming after me I would have consider my life threaten at that point and pulled my weapon. If they made a move for their gun I would have put 2 in his chest with out thinking twice.
 
~snip
If they made a move for their gun, bag of skittles or iced tea, cell phone, walkie talkie, etc I would have put 2 in his chest with out thinking twice.

I think that's how Zimmerman has ended up in the spot he's in now.
I wonder how all this would play out if your version happened and TM shot GZ, who was armed at the time. :ninja:
 
The thought of Zimmerman fighting from his back on the ground reminds me of how important it is to be well rounded- especially having the ability to fight from the ground.

30ab9xe.jpg
 
~ "but even if Martin did attack Zimmerman he would never have been attacked in the first place if he hadn't been chasing Martin".

Objection your honor. Witness stated that Z was chasing TM when in reality we know that is not the case. "Chasing" infers that TM was running from Z because Z had threatened TM. (IANAL)

~ If I was in Martin's shoes and someone was following me as I walked down the road and they were in a car~". ~ what the intentions were of the person following me.

Objection your honor. Witness immediately contradicts himself in his very next sentence. "Following" and "Chasing", especially in context with this case, are two very similar words but with 2 very distinct meanings. (IANAL)

~If they left there vehicle coming after me I would have consider my life threatened at that point and pulled my weapon.

And at that point you would be charged with ""Going Armed To The Terror Of The People (GAttTotP)"". You cannot brandish a "weapon" every time someone "leaves a vehicle", unless of course that other person has a weapon, which completely changes this whole scenario. (IANAL)

~If they made a move for their gun I would have put 2 in his chest with out thinking twice.

Completely justified, my friend, and you walk, no questions asked, especially if they got too close, you hadn't presented your weapon, and they proceeded to smash your head into the pavement. (IANAL)

So now we see the similarities with this case and your scenario. Would an unarmed man bum rush a man with a gun? Probably not. Stand Your Ground and self defense are on the table in Florida. GAttTotP, notsomuch, but in your scenario it would be.

All supposition of course, and not really related to any facts as have been introduced concerning TM vs. Z.

Ah, the what if's.

2c.
 
Objection your honor. Witness stated that Z was chasing TM when in reality we know that is not the case. "Chasing" infers that TM was running from Z because Z had threatened TM. (IANAL)

Your honor I would have to disagree with my very learned colleagues interpretation of the meaning chasing. "Chasing" is defined as the act of Pursuing in order to catch or catch up with and doesn't infer any threats have taken place. Mr. RB's client made statements to the 911 operator that he was fearful that TM was going to escape before the police could arrive. When Mr. Z left his vehicle he was in foot pursuit of TM which is the very definition of chasing because he caught up to TM.

Objection your honor. Witness immediately contradicts himself in his very next sentence. "Following" and "Chasing", especially in context with this case, are two very similar words but with 2 very distinct meanings. (IANAL)

Your honor I would have to disagree with my colleague once again. I believe following is an accurate term up and to the point someone leaves there vehicle as illustrated this particular case. At that point intentions have changed and the threat level has substantially changed for TM.

And at that point you would be charged with ""Going Armed To The Terror Of The People (GAttTotP)"". You cannot brandish a "weapon" every time someone "leaves a vehicle", unless of course that other person has a weapon, which completely changes this whole scenario. (IANAL)

I wouldn't be brandishing my weapon because someone left there car I would be drawing my weapon because someone was chasing me and I was in fear for my life at that point because I hadn't done anything wrong to justify anyone following me much less chasing me. The only reasonable conclusion I could make at that point is the person pursuing me was out to do harm to me.

In the end I'm happy that the case got investigated thoroughly and the parent of TM deserved that. I'm going to be good with what ever happens in court no matter if he goes to jail or walks. People will look at all the evidence and make an informed decision and I will respect what ever decision they make.

Love a good debate my friend.:-)
 
The only reasonable conclusion I could make at that point is the person pursuing me was out to do harm to me.
Love a good debate my friend.:-)

"Client counsel, your honor".

Dammit, Scott, I told you not to say "out to do harm to me." I told you to say, "I thought he was going to kill me"! :thumbsup:

Good debate! Back to regular programming.
 
Zimmerman Injuries Include Black Eyes, Fractured Nose- Court Docs

MIAMI – Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. He has entered a plea of not guilty and claims self-defense in the Feb. 26 shooting. A message left Tuesday evening with Zimmerman's attorney was not immediately returned.
Zimmerman was treated Feb. 27 at Altamonte Family Practice. A phone call made Tuesday evening to the practice rang unanswered.

ABC News first reported Zimmerman's injuries from the medical records. Some of the injuries were previously reported by The Associated Press based on video of Zimmerman at a jail sally port.

Zimmerman, 28, is free on $150,000 bail and living in an undisclosed location. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder charges that were only filed after the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the slaying in the central Florida city of Sanford. The case has become a national racial flashpoint because the Martin family and supporters contend Zimmerman singled Martin out because he was black.

It has also sparked renewed debate over "stand your ground" laws pushed by the National Rifle Association. While backers say such laws protect innocent lives, detractors contend they can become a virtual license to kill and are prone to misuse by criminals and misinterpretation by judges.

Zimmerman, who faces a potential life sentence if convicted, said he only fired his handgun because Martin attacked him. If Zimmerman prevails on his self-defense claim, a judge could dismiss the case before trial.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...dical-injuries/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1v2RjqhTY

Certainly gives more credence to Zimmerman's story..
 
Back
Top