Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2012, 09:23 AM   #136
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
Its not obvious. Martin had legs and could have come back.
If your overall argument is that we don't know what happened, that circumstances could have unfolded in a way that would have led Zimmerman to feel his life was in danger (say, Martin decided to attack the man following him first, attempted to get the gun away, and then . . .), and that we shouldn't be concluding Zimmerman is guilty at this point, then I agree.

However, with the facts we have, especially factoring in the report of the girl who was on the phone with Martin, there is good reason to suspect that Zimmerman could have antagonized Martin, that Zimmerman made Martin feel HE was under attack, and that Zimmerman used deadly force in the fight that followed, a fight that Zimmerman initiated on a citizen not engaged in illegal activity.

So it doesn't seem like leaping to conclusions to expect that the police at the very least should take Zimmerman into custody. As someone said earlier, that they didn't take Zimmerman into custody while investigating what happened in a fatality is one of the more disturbing things about all this because ti seems to indicate a trigger happy and possibly racist culture.

03-23-2012, 09:25 AM   #137
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I suspect that was what was intended, but it is a problem with the law when it is written more broadly than what was intended. If they meant a felony in progress, then that is what should have been said. Talking about a "reasonable belief" that one is "preventing" a forcible felony is very bad draftsmanship.
Section (a) clarifies that.

QuoteQuote:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
That part doesn't really apply to this case.
03-23-2012, 09:29 AM   #138
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
You keep making the circular argument that we have already discussed. What a lot of people think and what is actually known are 2 different things. What I said, I and I will repeat for the nth time, it is possible that Zimmerman actually stopped when he was told it wasn't needed for him to follow. There is a recording of him telling the dispatcher that he lost sight of Martin and was at a street sign waiting on police. We don't really know at this point who the aggressor was. Nothing either party did up until the altercation was illegal.
no, he didn't stop. reread the transcript carefully. just because he didn't explicitly state that he had stopped or not, doesnt mean he did. he clearly asked the dispatcher to have the police call him so he can give them his location upon arrival as opposed to STAYING PUT. why do you think he requested that? because he went after martin, who by his own admission was running away, thats why. reread the transcript, use your head.
03-23-2012, 09:34 AM   #139
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
Section (a) clarifies that.

That part doesn't really apply to this case.
The right to kill is set out in Subpart (3), which we have been discussing. Section (a) of Subpart (1) is not the section which sets out that right. It is setting out a presumption and determining the burden of proof. However, the fact that you are (somewhat justifiably) confused by this is another reason why this statute is a mess. If they had meant that those conditions needed to exist, then they should have said so in the section setting out the right to kill.

03-23-2012, 09:35 AM   #140
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
If your overall argument is that we don't know what happened, that circumstances could have unfolded in a way that would have led Zimmerman to feel his life was in danger (say, Martin decided to attack the man following him first, attempted to get the gun away, and then . . .), and that we shouldn't be concluding Zimmerman is guilty at this point, then I agree.
This is exactly what I have been trying to get across. If Zimmerman instigated the altercation, I want to see him held accountable.

QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
However, with the facts we have, especially factoring in the report of the girl who was on the phone with Martin, there is good reason to suspect that Zimmerman could have antagonized Martin, that Zimmerman made Martin feel HE was under attack, and that Zimmerman used deadly force in the fight that followed, a fight that Zimmerman initiated on a citizen not engaged in illegal activity.
The phone conservation with his girlfriend has mostly been filtered through the families attorney so we will likely not see the official aspects of this until testimony to the grand jury and/or during a trial.

QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
So it doesn't seem like leaping to conclusions to expect that the police at the very least should take Zimmerman into custody. As someone said earlier, that they didn't take Zimmerman into custody while investigating what happened in a fatality is one of the more disturbing things about all this because ti seems to indicate a trigger happy and possibly racist culture.
They did have him in custody for a while and they know his whereabouts. The case was initially turned over to the States Attorney. After all the national publicity, fed involvement, and task force headed up by the Lt. Gov., the original state's attorney withdrew and a states attorney from Jacksonville took over. It isn't uncommon for arrests to be made after a Grand Jury hearing or other investigations. The could have over charge Zimmerman or under charged him which would have opened up other issues. Perhaps they should have arrested him on 2nd Degree at the time.

As far as the racism issues in this case, I don't think they are as great as made out to be. The neighborhood was 49% white. Zimmerman's mother is a Cuban.
03-23-2012, 09:39 AM - 1 Like   #141
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
The right to kill is set out in Subpart (3) Section (a) of Subpart (1) is not the section which sets out the right. It is setting out a presumption and determining the burden of proof. However, the fact that you are (somewhat justifiably) confused by this is another reason why this statute is a mess.
You are trying to cherry pick it which is leading to your confusion. You can't ignore (a) and (b). Nor can you ignore (4)

QuoteQuote:
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Plus, there is actually a body of case law.

However, this is the part that applies to this case.

QuoteQuote:
(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.
There is case law in this area since 2005.
03-23-2012, 09:40 AM   #142
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
Nothing either party did up until the altercation was illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. Chasing someone in the dark in a way that makes them believe you might harm them may be a crime.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,

03-23-2012, 09:47 AM   #143
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
You are trying to cherry pick it which is leading to your confusion. You can't ignore (a) and (b). Nor can you ignore (4)

Plus, there is actually a body of case law.

However, this is the part that applies to this case.
Please provide a cite to some of that case law which you think supports what you are saying.

You are right that subsection (3) applies to this case and creates the problem. The rest do not at this point.
03-23-2012, 09:50 AM   #144
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Maybe, maybe not. Chasing someone in the dark in a way that makes them believe you might harm them may be a crime.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,

There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman intended in harm other than wanting police to check him out. However, words alone aren't grounds enough to use any kind of weapon under Florida law. It would have been illegal for Zimmerman to show a weapon and threaten Martin and a class c Felony.

From the Florida ccw site.

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

QuoteQuote:
What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
It would have been illegal for Zimmerman to show a weapon and threaten Martin and a class c Felony.

QuoteQuote:
Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
03-23-2012, 09:56 AM   #145
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
This is exactly what I have been trying to get across. If Zimmerman instigated the altercation, I want to see him held accountable.
I personally respect that, but I also know it is often difficult to stand up for objectivity when people are emotionally wrought up; to some, your call for objectivity will appear like you are sticking up for the bad guy and bad laws.


QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
As far as the racism issues in this case, I don't think they are as great as made out to be. The neighborhood was 49% white. Zimmerman's mother is a Cuban.
I didn't make it clear, but I was mostly referring to the police department and the culture created by the general population's interpretation of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Last edited by les3547; 03-23-2012 at 10:43 AM.
03-23-2012, 10:00 AM   #146
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Please provide a cite to some of that case law which you think supports what you are saying.

You are right that subsection (3) applies to this case and creates the problem. The rest do not at this point.

Number of "stand your ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


QuoteQuote:
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that "stand your ground" is being invoked with greater frequency.

Florida 'stand your ground' law results in no charges in fatal Hillsborough road rage stabbing - Tampa Bay Times

This is the most recent trial of a participant in a 2009 shootout at a Circle K where one was killed, 2 or 3 wounded and the store windows shot out. The Stand your ground didn't work because they were either convicted felons or juvenile delinquents. No one got pinned for murder but they got 20+ years on illegally concealing weapons and gun charges.

[UPDATE] Verdict in for Suspect in Circle K Shootout
03-23-2012, 10:04 AM   #147
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman intended in harm other than wanting police to check him out. However, words alone aren't grounds enough to use any kind of weapon under Florida law. It would have been illegal for Zimmerman to show a weapon and threaten Martin and a class c Felony.

From the Florida ccw site.
Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

It would have been illegal for Zimmerman to show a weapon and threaten Martin and a class c Felony.
Those are not the law, but a Q&A about weapons. As I said, maybe what he did was legal and maybe not. His statement about this f--ing [whatever] always getting away indicates some intent to do more than call the police. Having someone follow you in the dark is an overt act. It is not clear here that he was or was not within his rights.
03-23-2012, 10:07 AM   #148
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
Number of "stand your ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com
Florida 'stand your ground' law results in no charges in fatal Hillsborough road rage stabbing - Tampa Bay Times

This is the most recent trial of a participant in a 2009 shootout at a Circle K where one was killed, 2 or 3 wounded and the store windows shot out. The Stand your ground didn't work because they were either convicted felons or juvenile delinquents. No one got pinned for murder but they got 20+ years on illegally concealing weapons and gun charges.

[UPDATE] Verdict in for Suspect in Circle K Shootout
It sounds to me like the Florida lawmakers are having some of the same concerns I am. It is also interesting that they first article only posts subsection (3).
03-23-2012, 10:09 AM   #149
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In Transition
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Those are not the law, but a Q&A about weapons. As I said, maybe what he did was legal and maybe not. His statement about this f--ing [whatever] always getting away indicates some intent to do more than call the police. Having someone follow you in the dark is an overt act. It is not clear here that he was or was not within his rights.
The Q&A is based on case law and statute by the issuing agency. Zimmerman signed that he was aware of these things when he got his concealed weapons permit.
03-23-2012, 10:13 AM   #150
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by FlashCube Quote
The Q&A is based on case law and statute by the issuing agency.
They are based on someone's opinion of those things. I'm not sure what you are calling case law is really case law, either. When one talks about case law in a legal context, it is generally a case that can be cited as legal precedent. Refusals to prosecute are not precedent and even jury verdicts are not binding on the next court.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
florida, outrage, phone, pressure, reuters, trayvon, vigilante-style, zimmerman
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Polaroid Builds Android-Powered Smart Camera joe.penn General Talk 10 01-11-2012 05:21 PM
NYT: Support Builds for a Plan to Rein In Medicare Costs jolepp General Talk 3 11-27-2011 07:27 AM
Travel Killing fields bymy141 Post Your Photos! 12 04-15-2010 01:53 PM
Pentax builds them tough.... Heinrich Lohmann Post Your Photos! 36 08-25-2008 02:55 PM
Outrage in Indianapolis MRRiley Photographic Industry and Professionals 51 07-09-2007 05:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top