Trayvon Martin Case

Marine0311 said:
Didn't he claim that from the start?
Click to expand...
IIRC the initial encounter was handled by the local PD as a stand your ground scenario, further review after the fact by the State Attorney's Office caused charges to be filed. However, the defense did not invoke stand your ground as a defense. Z may have initially stated that when being interviewed by police, but his defense team did not carry it through into the case.
 
ke4gde said:
IIRC the initial encounter was handled by the local PD as a stand your ground scenario, further review after the fact by the State Attorney's Office caused charges to be filed. However, the defense did not invoke stand your ground as a defense. Z may have initially stated that when being interviewed by police, but his defense team did not carry it through into the case.
Click to expand...


IIRC, The elements of the case where what the defense attys went by. Z was on the ground getting his head bashed in when he used lethal force. IIRC Stand Your Ground would not apply. Z was not in a position of retreating from a threat or avoiding contact by the use of force. I believe it, SYG, is used before physical contact is made.

SYG adds a layer of protection to the victims in a self defense situation. I am pretty sure no state laws requires a person to retreat, it does keep a over zealous DA from going after a person who defended themselves, much like Castle Doctrine, removes the element of maybe having to prove that a person was fearful for their lives on a home intrusion situation.
 
HOLLiS said:
IIRC, The elements of the case where what the defense attys went by. Z was on the ground getting his head bashed in when he used lethal force. IIRC Stand Your Ground would not apply. Z was not in a position of retreating from a threat or avoiding contact by the use of force. I believe it, SYG, is used before physical contact is made.

SYG adds a layer of protection to the victims in a self defense situation. I am pretty sure no state laws requires a person to retreat, it does keep a over zealous DA from going after a person who defended themselves, much like Castle Doctrine, removes the element of maybe having to prove that a person was fearful for their lives on a home intrusion situation.
Click to expand...
Yes and No. Prior to SYG, Florida did require a person to retreat if at all possible. The standard for SYG is not contact in and of itself. SYG applies only for the use of deadly force, and that force is only legal when you feel in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. Simple physical contact, such as a simple fist fight between two people evenly matched would not justify deadly force. Or if someone were slapping you, but not providing the possibility of death or great bodily harm would also not justify deadly force. SYG effectively makes where ever you are a castle doctrine area. However, even in your home under castle doctrine you are required to articulate that you were in fear of your life. Castle doctrine does not remove or alter the standard for the use of deadly force. Luckily, the courts have interpreted that almost any incursion into your home is the potential for harm and the response of deadly force is justified in most cases.

In the case of Z, his justification came in the form of being mounted and having his head bashed into the ground, and not from just shoving each other.
 
^^^, I was keeping it simple. Even terms like simply physical contact become hazy. Obviously a pushing match is not justification for the use of lethal force or is it? What we don't know at the beginning is how altercation will end. As soon a physical contact is made, it opens a whole world of possibilities as to how it will end. One state that I worked in (LEO) mutual combat was not against the law. That was changed because those events can end seriously wrong.

When elements are added to defining the act of self defense such as, "fearful of harm", a DA can charge the victim if they feel that the victim was not in any harm. Self defense laws here, do not require a retreat but other elements must be present. IIRC, from what I read on Castle Doctrine is that those elements that justify self defense from the states POV need not be proven or makes it difficult for a DA to go after the victim. The assumptions is that if a a person is in your home, is reason enough to use lethal force.

The DA could feel that another law(s) have been violated if the investigation shows that. None of this gives a blank check to kill someone and then claim SD. My understanding the reason for SYG and CD is to protect the lawful citizen from a over zealous DA. From my understanding of the TM/GZ case, it should have never gone to court. I think it was more a political reason to go to court than based on the facts of the case. I maybe just hind sighting that issue.
 
Gotcha, though in this case I was trying to be specific with regards to Florida law, which I am familiar with. Hence the specific nature of the post. You are probably right as to the intention of the law and the courts interpretation. Although whether or not the TM/GZ case should have gone to court is another matter that is sticky at best when trying to hash out. In general, I think there was enough to arrest (sufficient probable cause) GZ based on the manner in which the SAO presented their evidence, but not enough to secure a conviction (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Which in itself can be fucked up depending on how you look at it. As in "you have enough to believe I probably did it and take away my rights temporarily" but "you don't have enough to prove beyond doubt that I did do it and lock me up". If you really look at it, it is very scary the legal threshold needed to actually arrest you. Although the argument could be made that this is offset by the legal threshold needed to convict you. Both will ruin your livelihood no matter the outcome. In any event, that is a philosophical discussion for another thread and time lol.
 
Agree, does not take much to arrest someone. Going to court is another issue as you pointed out.

Zimmerman is a great example, "will ruin your livelihood no matter the outcome". Who knows it maybe have gone easier on him, if he was found guilty. There has been other cases that were trial by the media where a innocent person's life was completely ruined.
 
He's turned himself into an absolute joke, but on the plus side, he's causing a lot of butthurt for libs and rabid BLM supporters. Always a silver lining.
 
The guy's a shit magnet, doesn't necessarily mean he's always in the wrong though. I'm sure other people instigate it more often than not.
 
@Florida173 , disagree because the man cannot stop calling attention to himself:

Zimmerman said he was ordering food at Gators Riverside Grille Sunday evening when he walked by a table with several people and complimented a man’s Confederate flag tattoos, according to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office.

The man, Joseph Whitmer, thanked him and asked, “aren’t you that guy?” Zimmerman said yes and pulled out his ID to prove who he was, a report shows.
 
Ooh-Rah said:
@Florida173 , disagree because the man cannot stop calling attention to himself:

Zimmerman said he was ordering food at Gators Riverside Grille Sunday evening when he walked by a table with several people and complimented a man’s Confederate flag tattoos, according to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office.

The man, Joseph Whitmer, thanked him and asked, “aren’t you that guy?” Zimmerman said yes and pulled out his ID to prove who he was, a report shows.
Click to expand...

Yep. Shit magnet
 

Similar threads

RackMaster
Canadian Forces brass defying federal directive to boost reserves
Replies
5
Views
1K
pardus
pardus
Gypsy
AAR, Gen McCaffrey (Ret)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Paddlefoot
Paddlefoot
Back
Top