fjl2nd Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Has anyone been keeping up with this story? What a failure of the justice system! How this man hasn't been arrested for murder is beyond me. Details: Some Background 911 Calls Kid was found carrying.....a bag of Skittles and an Iced Tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Has anyone been keeping up with this story? What a failure of the justice system! How this man hasn't been arrested for murder is beyond me. Details: Some Background 911 Calls Kid was found carrying.....a bag of Skittles and an Iced Tea. Been following it. The story was shown on Good Morning America yesterday and some cable news outlets last night. Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday. Apparently the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley. At the end of the day, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the scene is an absolute farce. The dispositive legal issue is that he got out of his vehicle, with a weapon, under no pretense that he was in danger or that Martin had committed a felonious act, to pursue an individual who was unarmed, and moving away from him, and that Zimmerman is taller and 100 lbs heavier than Mr. Martin. Those are incontrovertible facts that will be dispositive in both the criminal case against the Zimmerman, the civil suit against Zimmerman, and what (in this ESQ's estimation) should probably be a colorable negligent entrustment action against the housing community/community-watch group. On the strength of those facts, Zimmerman should have been arrested. In most square places, Zimmerman is awaiting arraignment right now. Edited March 20, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 How this man hasn't been arrested for murder is beyond me. Because Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, which was passed in 2005 and extends to public places as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 There are conflicting reports by witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Because Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, which was passed in 2005 and extends to public places as well. And based on your understanding of that law, how do you feel that it fits the facts and circumstances of this case...as you understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think Zimmerman's a racist at 2:19 you hear him say "!@#$ing coons" I'm pretty sure that's a term of endearment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) And based on your understanding of that law, how do you feel that it fits the facts and circumstances of this case...as you understand them. What facts? What do we actually know about this case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding so far goes something like this: Things we know: 1. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the instructions of the 911 operator. 2. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon. 3. During a confrontation/struggle, Zimmerman fired his weapon and killed Martin. Things we don't know: 1. Who started the confrontation/struggle (Odds are that Zimmerman did, but "odds are" doesn't get you **** in a trial). 2. (Similar to 1) Who, if anybody, was acting in self-defense. I think this is a travesty, but if I were a prosecutor I would not want this case showing up on my desk. All Zimmerman would have to show is that he reasonably believed he was in danger of serious injury. Edited March 20, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 What facts? What do we actually know about this case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding so far goes something like this: Things we know: 1. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the instructions of the 911 operator. 2. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon. 3. During a confrontation/struggle, Zimmerman fired his weapon and killed Martin. Things we don't know: 1. Who started the confrontation/struggle (Odds are that Zimmerman did, but "odds are" doesn't get you **** in a trial). 2. (Similar to 1) Who, if anybody, was acting in self-defense. I think this is a travesty, but if I were a prosecutor I would not want this case showing up on my desk. The thing is, by makeing no arrest, the police have already taken their stance in the case...travesty is a good word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 And based on your understanding of that law, how do you feel that it fits the facts and circumstances of this case...as you understand them. http://news.yahoo.com/why-trayvon-martins-killer-isnt-under-arrest-3-112200073.html "The 2005 law allows permitted gun owners like Zimmerman to use lethal force on anybody, in any public space, if they reasonably believe it will "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Courts say the burden is on prosecutors to prove that the shooter was not acting in self-defense, so "some Orlando-area police agencies simply stopped investigating shootings involving self-defense claims," says Henry Pierson Curtis in the Orlando Sentinel. "In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted."' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 "...Apparently the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley..." Dave in Elma??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 This sounded like a very serious matter to me of a murderous man with a grudge against young black boys. Then I heard Al Sharpton is on the way and figured there's probably a good chance I might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If he really did pursue Martin... How is that "stand your ground." Sounds like a "charging foul" to me. If that is what really happened... Of course this will be all the 911 tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 At the end of the day this is what happened: A kid wanted some candy during the NBA All-Star halftime. He went out and got it and then was chased down and killed by a man over 100 pounds bigger with a gun. Trayvon had no chance. The last person to talk to Trayvon, while he was being followed: http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 This sounded like a very serious matter to me of a murderous man with a grudge against young black boys. Then I heard Al Sharpton is on the way and figured there's probably a good chance I might be wrong. So true... If I were Martin's family, I wouldn't have Sharpton within a 1,000 miles faster than you can say Tawana Brawley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 At the end of the day this is what happened: A kid wanted some candy during the NBA All-Star halftime. He went out and got it and then was chased down and killed by a man over 100 pounds bigger with a gun. Trayvon had no chance. Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Duh! It's a sign that this crime is an extension of the growing obesity epidemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Because it's pretty hard to be in imminent danger when you are that much bigger than someone and have a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? It's a dispositive point that ALWAYS arises in claims of self-defense...as I'll mention when I address the "reasonabless" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/why-trayvon-martins-killer-isnt-under-arrest-3-112200073.html "The 2005 law allows permitted gun owners like Zimmerman to use lethal force on anybody, in any public space, if they reasonably believe it will "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Courts say the burden is on prosecutors to prove that the shooter was not acting in self-defense, so "some Orlando-area police agencies simply stopped investigating shootings involving self-defense claims," says Henry Pierson Curtis in the Orlando Sentinel. "In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted."' Exactly. There are a few words that actually have meaning there - the most important of which is "reasonably." The law is so much predicated on a "reasonable person standard": the "reasonable" man (if you will). Rob'sHouse can probably tell you all about it since he is actively dealing with that madness whereas I'm almost a decade out of LWorld. But I digress...the dispositive legal questions are: 1. Would the "reasonable person," if feeling threatened with immigent physical harm, follow a retreating entity? (Keep in mind, even though FL has no duty to retreat and doesn't necessarily follow the traditional narrowly defined "Castle doctrine," can you still escalate an otherwise diffused circumstance there...) 2. Would the "reasonable" 250 lbs, 6'0" man feel threatened by a 5'10" 150 lbs. man? (Keep in mind - it doesn't matter if *you* would feel threatened, it just matters whether or not the "reasonable person" would consider that a threatening circumstance given those variables? 3. Then you add that the victim did not have a weapon. Wow. A non-legal analysis - Zimmerman is a pathetic ghetto thug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Because it's pretty hard to be in imminent danger when you are that much bigger than someone and have a gun. So it's impossible for someone who's both big and armed to act in self defense? If I shoot someone who's trying to mug me at knifepoint, it's not self-defense because I'm 6'4", 270, and armed? Exactly. There are a few words that actually have meaning there - the most important of which is "reasonably." The law is so much predicated on a "reasonable person standard": the "reasonable" man (if you will). Rob'sHouse can probably tell you all about it since he is actively dealing with that madness whereas I'm almost a decade out of LWorld. But I digress...the dispositive legal questions are: 1. Would the "reasonable person," if feeling threatened with immigent physical harm, follow a retreating entity? (Keep in mind, even though FL has no duty to retreat and doesn't necessarily follow the traditional narrowly defined "Castle doctrine," can you still escalate an otherwise diffused circumstance there...) 2. Would the "reasonable" 250 lbs, 6'0" man feel threatened by a 5'10" 150 lbs. man? (Keep in mind - it doesn't matter if *you* would feel threatened, it just matters whether or not the "reasonable person" would consider that a threatening circumstance given those variables? 3. Then you add that the victim did not have a weapon. Wow. A non-legal analysis - Zimmerman is a pathetic ghetto thug. Key point on #2...it's not just if HE would feel threatened, but if he felt someone ELSE was threatened as well. #1 is the real crux of the issue, though...if you're allowed to claim to feel threatened by someone you're actively following, I can think of at least two people in Florida I could kill right now with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) At the end of the day this is what happened: A kid wanted some candy during the NBA All-Star halftime. He went out and got it and then was chased down and killed by a man over 100 pounds bigger with a gun. Trayvon had no chance Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? I understand Tom's concern since he weighs a couple hundred pounds more than most people but looking past his obvious bias in favor of fatties I'm going to shockingly agree with him- really why should we take into account things like size and such when figuring out whether use of lethal self-defense is reasonable or not- maybe we will start to see cases like this in Florida. 911 there's a man walking around the neighbor he looks dazed, he's acting weird, I think he's on drugs, oh my God he has something in his hand it looks like a weapon, I got to do something right now, bang, - Police come and ask what happened- This guy was menacing me with a weapon and yelling "what" real loud I felt threatened so I shot him- Sir the man was 95 and had a quad cane- Like I said a weapon- Sir the man was 70 years older than you are you really claiming self defense-Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Edited March 20, 2012 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I understand Tom's concern since he weighs a couple hundred pounds more than most people but looking past his obvious bias in favor of fatties I'm going to shockingly agree with him- really why should we take into account things like size and such when figuring out whether use of lethal self-defense is reasonable or not- maybe we will start to see cases like this in Florida. 911 there's a man walking around the neighbor he looks dazed, he's acting weird, I think he's on drugs, oh my God he has something in his hand it looks like a weapon, I got to do something right now, bang, - Police come and ask what happened- This guy was menacing me with a weapon and yelling "what" real loud I felt threatened so I shot him- Sir the man was 95 and had a quad cane- Like I said a weapon- Sir the man was 70 years older than you are you really claiming self defense-Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Thank you for our daily affirmation of your inner retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Trayvon had no chance. I always get a kick out of people who somehow get so caught up in a story like this that they constantly refer to the young victim by their first name as if they were childhood buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 What facts? What do we actually know about this case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding so far goes something like this: Things we know: 1. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the instructions of the 911 operator. 2. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon. 3. During a confrontation/struggle, Zimmerman fired his weapon and killed Martin. Things we don't know: 1. Who started the confrontation/struggle (Odds are that Zimmerman did, but "odds are" doesn't get you **** in a trial). 2. (Similar to 1) Who, if anybody, was acting in self-defense. I think this is a travesty, but if I were a prosecutor I would not want this case showing up on my desk. All Zimmerman would have to show is that he reasonably believed he was in danger of serious injury. Any intrepid prosecutor should be glad to have this case and provide justice for his family given the facts. 1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data. a. The victim, by all accounts and in consideration of the 911 tape, was retreating what he felt was an escalating situation. Zimmerman, in consideration of the same data, wasn't going after Martin to ask him to stop by and play Madden. There is enough circumstantial data to suggest that Zimmerman had already escalated the matter by going against the police's admonitions. The reasonable person can infer that Zimmerman continuing that escalation in his confrontation with Martin. b. Juries are asked everyday to draw inferences based on an appraisal of presented data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Thank you for our daily affirmation of your inner retard. you're the one saying that physical differences should not be taken into consideration when judging the reasonableness of lethal action taken in self-defense, I find that pretty moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 #1 is the real crux of the issue, though...if you're allowed to claim to feel threatened by someone you're actively following, I can think of at least two people in Florida I could kill right now with impunity. Exactly. And that is where prosecutors will have to pin their hopes. Per the language: "reasonably believe it will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Was it, in fact, reasonable, for Zimmerman to believe that he was at great risk given that he followed a retreating entity? A GREAT defense counsel will argue that the risk didn't present itself until after Zimmerman caught up with Martin. Based on my review of some precedent in FL, those circumstances would present a case of first impression in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Plain in simple. If he was pursuring Martin, it is not self-defense. He is on the attack, right? Like I made the basketball reference between charging and a defensive foul. From what I read, the guy was "charging." Didn't the 911 dispatcher tell him to lay off? It should be on tape. How is this remotely a "stand your ground defense?" It was anything but, it seems to have been an agresssive attack. Self-defense is not a predatory move. I always get a kick out of people who somehow get so caught up in a story like this that they constantly refer to the young victim by their first name as if they were childhood buddies. Mark, people call me Eric. I don't know them and they don't know me from Adam... Well not poster Adam that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Mark, people call me Eric. I don't know them and they don't know me from Adam... Well not poster Adam that is. Yeah, that was exactly what I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The more I hear about this, the more I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman is !@#$ed. I didn't realize before that the evidence points to Martin actively retreating before the altercation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 911 there's a man walking around the neighbor he looks dazed, he's acting weird, I think he's on drugs, oh my God he has something in his hand it looks like a weapon like a Pats* fan, I got to do something right now, bang, - Police come and ask what happened- This guy was menacing me with a weapon and yelling "what" real loud wearing a Pats* jersey I felt threatened so I shot him- Sir the man was 95 and had a quad cane- Like I said a weapon- Sir the man was 70 years older than you are you really claiming self defense-Why on earth does that at all !@#$ing matter? Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I always get a kick out of people who somehow get so caught up in a story like this that they constantly refer to the young victim by their first name as if they were childhood buddies. It makes the outrage more believable. Just imagine if he had been engaged, like "groom to be" Sean Bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 you're the one saying that physical differences should not be taken into consideration when judging the reasonableness of lethal action taken in self-defense, I find that pretty moronic. FWIW I know a guy who goes about 5'9" 165 lb who I'm pretty sure could beat the brakes off all of us if he felt so inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Trayvon had no chance. He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day Is that NYT article really only 16 or 17 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday. Hundreds of blacks are killed by fellow blacks everyday and yet Al Sharpton doesn't have rallies at those killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day Trayvon liked his money. Made a lot they say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hundreds of blacks are killed by fellow blacks everyday and yet Al Sharpton doesn't have rallies at those killings. Are those killing also accompanied with cell phone calls where the killer is saying "!@#$in coons always get away"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Are those killing also accompanied with cell phone calls where the killer is saying "!@#$in coons always get away"? I hadn't heard that on this case, and it would kind of surprise me because Hispanics don't usually call black people coons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Are those killing also accompanied with cell phone calls where the killer is saying "!@#$in coons always get away"? You're a !@#$ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hundreds of blacks are killed by fellow blacks everyday and yet Al Sharpton doesn't have rallies at those killings. Like clockwork. just like Sharpton never misses the opportunity to stick his mug in a racially charged episode, you want to be sure to get your turn. What does your gold medallion look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts