A boy named Trayvon Martin is shot and killed by neighborhood watch goon

#51
#51
WA_Vol said:
That's interesting, a few years ago where I was living a 16 year old broke into a man's house and the man shot and killed him. As far as I know he was unarmed. No one questioned that he had a right to shoot, but I don't think I could have done it. Kill a boy over that.
Click to expand...

That kid broke into someone's house to steal something. This in Fla was minding his own business coming back from the store.
 
#52
#52
OK, I've been reading up a little on the Florida stand your ground law. Sounds like a license to murder to me.
 
#54
#54
Slydell said:
OK, I've been reading up a little on the Florida stand your ground law. Sounds like a license to murder to me.
Click to expand...

No, it merely means you don't have to turn and run when attacked. The idea is if you're the good guy then why would you have to be the one with the burden of giving ground? In such a case you could quite literally turn out to be the "bad guy" not because you weren't faced with danger but, in somebody else's opinion you could have, you know, tried harder to get away. Anything where anybody is getting killed is messy business but consider this; if an intended victim is actually going to have not only defend themselves from an attack but then have to defend themselves from prosecution for defending themselves on whose side is the law more forgiving...the attackers or the attackee? Is that really the side you want given the benefit of the doubt?

Having stated the above I really don't like it's application (as I currently understand the evidence) with the particular case in question. Specifically, the use of lethal force when "standing your ground" rather strongly implies you're doing so against an overt threat, don't you think? Shooting a kid holding a bag of candy in an encounter where the shooter appears to in fact have initiated a hostile encounter pushes even the most lenient interpretation of SYG in my estimation. I don't think there's room in SYG doctrine to allow for someone to go looking for trouble and then fall back on lethal force when they find it...much less when that level of force is used against an unarmed person. It may only be a personal observation but I've never liked the instigator-turned-victim defense.
 
#55
#55
Slydell said:
OK, I've been reading up a little on the Florida stand your ground law. Sounds like a license to murder to me.
Click to expand...

That's bull****, this neighborhood rent-a-cop (probably scared of his own shadow) went too far. My god his father lived in the community, Zimmerman was bound to have seen him before.
 
#57
#57
hndog609 said:
No, it merely means you don't have to turn and run when attacked. The idea is if you're the good guy then why would you have to be the one with the burden of giving ground? In such a case you could quite literally turn out to be the "bad guy" not because you weren't faced with danger but, in somebody else's opinion you could have, you know, tried harder to get away. Anything where anybody is getting killed is messy business but consider this; if an intended victim is actually going to have not only defend themselves from an attack but then have to defend themselves from prosecution for defending themselves on whose side is the law more forgiving...the attackers or the attackee? Is that really the side you want given the benefit of the doubt?

Having stated the above I really don't like it's application (as I currently understand the evidence) with the particular case in question. Specifically, the use of lethal force when "standing your ground" rather strongly implies you're doing so against an overt threat, don't you think? Shooting a kid holding a bag of candy in an encounter where the shooter appears to in fact have initiated a hostile encounter pushes even the most lenient interpretation of SYG in my estimation. I don't think there's room in SYG doctrine to allow for someone to go looking for trouble and then fall back on lethal force when they find it...much less when that level of force is used against an unarmed person. It may only be a personal observation but I've never liked the instigator-turned-victim defense.
Click to expand...

This past year we changed the castle doctrine here in Pennsylvania to something similar. In the past, you could not argue self defense if you had a viable means of escape. This meant if you had an intruder in your home and had a clear path to your back door, you had to choose to escape rather than defend your property. Now you are allowed to argue that you took means to defend yourself as well as your property.

That said, I cannot see how anyone could ever argue that a 140 lbs unarmed teen-ager could ever pose a lethal threat to an armed man who outweighs him by 100lbs. Even if the kid was beating him up, he had non-lethal steps he could have taken to settle the situation--just draw the gun and shoot in the air for heaven's sake. But I agree with Grizz, this guy seems to have been overly suspicious of the kid, decided to play hero and ended up killing him out of fear based on his biases. That is just my opinion based on what I've read of course!
 
#58
#58
hndog609 said:
No, it merely means you don't have to turn and run when attacked. The idea is if you're the good guy then why would you have to be the one with the burden of giving ground? In such a case you could quite literally turn out to be the "bad guy" not because you weren't faced with danger but, in somebody else's opinion you could have, you know, tried harder to get away. Anything where anybody is getting killed is messy business but consider this; if an intended victim is actually going to have not only defend themselves from an attack but then have to defend themselves from prosecution for defending themselves on whose side is the law more forgiving...the attackers or the attackee? Is that really the side you want given the benefit of the doubt?

Having stated the above I really don't like it's application (as I currently understand the evidence) with the particular case in question. Specifically, the use of lethal force when "standing your ground" rather strongly implies you're doing so against an overt threat, don't you think? Shooting a kid holding a bag of candy in an encounter where the shooter appears to in fact have initiated a hostile encounter pushes even the most lenient interpretation of SYG in my estimation. I don't think there's room in SYG doctrine to allow for someone to go looking for trouble and then fall back on lethal force when they find it...much less when that level of force is used against an unarmed person. It may only be a personal observation but I've never liked the instigator-turned-victim defense.
Click to expand...

I understand the intent of the law and the intent is good. But, interpretation is too vague, IMO. Basically, all someone has to do is say they feared for their life or great bodily harm.

I don't know if this is the actual law being referred to or not. It's the one that keeps coming up when I Google it.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
 
#59
#59
YorkVol said:
This past year we changed the castle doctrine here in Pennsylvania to something similar. In the past, you could not argue self defense if you had a viable means of escape. This meant if you had an intruder in your home and had a clear path to your back door, you had to choose to escape rather than defend your property. Now you are allowed to argue that you took means to defend yourself as well as your property.

That said, I cannot see how anyone could ever argue that a 140 lbs unarmed teen-ager could ever pose a lethal threat to an armed man who outweighs him by 100lbs. Even if the kid was beating him up, he had non-lethal steps he could have taken to settle the situation--just draw the gun and shoot in the air for heaven's sake. But I agree with Grizz, this guy seems to have been overly suspicious of the kid, decided to play hero and ended up killing him out of fear based on his biases. That is just my opinion based on what I've read of course!
Click to expand...

Yep...if someone illegally forces their way into an occupied residence I just can't have a problem with the idea that the people legally there have to give ground.

With the caveat that this is only based on what I know of the case I'd burn Zimmerman to the ground. You just don't go around instigating armed, hostile confrontations as a civilian to the point you get unarmed kids shot. Hell, this wouldn't look good if it were LEO's involved and they DO have a right to confront.
 
#60
#60
YorkVol said:
This past year we changed the castle doctrine here in Pennsylvania to something similar. In the past, you could not argue self defense if you had a viable means of escape. This meant if you had an intruder in your home and had a clear path to your back door, you had to choose to escape rather than defend your property. Now you are allowed to argue that you took means to defend yourself as well as your property.

That said, I cannot see how anyone could ever argue that a 140 lbs unarmed teen-ager could ever pose a lethal threat to an armed man who outweighs him by 100lbs. Even if the kid was beating him up, he had non-lethal steps he could have taken to settle the situation--just draw the gun and shoot in the air for heaven's sake. But I agree with Grizz, this guy seems to have been overly suspicious of the kid, decided to play hero and ended up killing him out of fear based on his biases. That is just my opinion based on what I've read of course!
Click to expand...

With the limited "facts" I've seen on this, I agree 100%.
 
#61
#61
Slydell said:
I understand the intent of the law and the intent is good. But, interpretation is too vague, IMO. Basically, all someone has to do is say they feared for their life or great bodily harm.

I don't know if this is the actual law being referred to or not. It's the one that keeps coming up when I Google it.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
Click to expand...

I may just be getting what you're driving at wrong but this looks like two different issues. Just saying you "feared for your life" will NOT be good enough without some kind of substantiation for that claim. This is for an "in the street" type encounter.

What you link to though is a very specific where the substantiation is implied by the circumstance. Make careful note of the boldened;

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
Click to expand...

What follows the above is actually quite clear. If someone forces their way into a protected area that's on them and they've authorized lethal action against themselves. There are caveates listed where you are NOT justified in the use of such force so it's hardly a carte blanche even with the above.

I don't think the "castle" part of the castle doctrine is all that vague. Anybody breaking into your home at 3:00 AM can be met with lethal force. (and it's not like you're required to kill anybody, just that under those circumstances the law has the criminal assume the burden of justification)

Now for the trickier part;

3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

So now we're outside these protected areas where we have that "presumption" of reasonable fear. Now it's obviously more vague but look at the underlined. Granted there's more room for interpretation but that's hardly carte blanche to start shooting either. Any think a bag of Skittles vs a gun squares well in the "force with force" part? Me neither. And where's the evidence of a threat meeting the burden of a "reasonable belief" that lethal force was required in our discussed case to "prevent death or great bodily harm"?

I'll say again that I don't know anything other than what's been released but going on what I do know Zimmerman would not want me on his jury.
 
#64
#64
I predict they put him on trial for murder and he gets convicted for manslaughter and gets 8-10 and is out in 5 to 6 for good behavior.
 
#65
#65
WA_Vol said:
I predict they put him on trial for murder and he gets convicted for manslaughter and gets 8-10 and is out in 5 to 6 for good behavior.
Click to expand...

Manslaughter? Is that all? Well what do you expect from a state where a mother murders her child and gets off.
 
#68
#68
Coach Grizz said:
Manslaughter? Is that all? Well what do you expect from a state where a mother murders her child and gets off.
Click to expand...

Here in TN, we had a wife shoot her husband in the back of the head while he was sleeping and she got off.

There is no justice anymore.
 
#72
#72
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here in TN, we had a wife shoot her husband in the back of the head while he was sleeping and she got off.

There is no justice anymore.
Click to expand...

also in Clarksville, a kid got shot for banging on a guys garage door
the kids were running away, and he shot one of them in the leg...
 
#74
#74
It's unfortanate that there are loop holes in our system that people get away with anything these days and people can sue for some of the most outrageous things too.
 
#75
#75
I am posting this new article from the Orlando Sentinel this evening to demonstrate how imperative it is that everyone allow thge investigation to take place before jumping to conclusions.

The two attorneys for the family had inissted that there were two shots on the 911 recordings. One they called a warning shot, the second the fatal shot. And they claimed this proved Zimmerman was stalking and murdered the young man. This contradicted the statements of people in the area that said they heard one shot.

Well, the investigation shows fairly conclusively that there was one shot. This is based on the fact that one casing was found and the clip was full (meaning only the chambered round was fired). Really, the two attorneys saying these conclusive things about the case, in order to fan the flames of outrage, I think do a disservice to the community and even the family involved. All it does is convince them that their son was outright murdered, when in reality the situation is probably much more complex than they have been led to believe.

Trayvon Martin shooting: College students to rally at courthouse for Trayvon - Orlando Sentinel
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top