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...
Recommended Posts