You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:21:27 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.  (Read 12138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline errantwandering

  • Patron Saint of Vagabonds, Ne'er Do Wells, Insufferable Bastards
  • Suspended
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Male
  • Wandering wind swept streets where black rain runs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #150 on: April 25, 2012, 09:51:35 PM »
According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #151 on: April 25, 2012, 09:53:55 PM »
According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

Thing is... It doesn't add up right. Why would Trayvon double back and attack him?  There is more to this than anyone but Zimmerman knows.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #152 on: April 25, 2012, 09:59:06 PM »
According to Zimmerman's testimony, he turned back when the dispatcher told him to, and was then sucker-punched by Martin.  I don't know if that's true or not, but in the absence of compelling evidence that he's lying, this certainly seems like a case of self defense.  He was injured when police got there, his record with the neighborhood watch is one of responsibility, rather than reckless violence, and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence that he "stalked" Trayvon, nor that he initiated the violence.  This case is a tragedy, but innocent until proven guilty still applies.

If he had been in custody from the start and the case hadn't been treated so badly by officers I would agree, but when someone tampers with evidence in your favor it's safe to say you did something wrong.

Offline Etah dna Evol

  • I LIVE FOR THIS
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Every drop of blood, every bitter tear, every bead of sweat
  • Gender: Male
  • Cursed and freed
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #153 on: April 25, 2012, 10:05:28 PM »
I hate peoples opinions on this subject. Can we start with, Zimmerman should not have been arrested. In America we have a little something called the presumption of innocence, which means that in criminal cases defendants are innocent until PROVEN guilty. They are jailed only if they are a flight risk.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #154 on: April 25, 2012, 10:14:00 PM »
I hate peoples opinions on this subject. Can we start with, Zimmerman should not have been arrested. In America we have a little something called the presumption of innocence, which means that in criminal cases defendants are innocent until PROVEN guilty. They are jailed only if they are a flight risk.

Murdering someone that you stalked and provoked usually will get you arrested. Especially after a family member of yours tampers with the case to make things look more favorable and holds up the investigation for over a month.

Offline errantwandering

  • Patron Saint of Vagabonds, Ne'er Do Wells, Insufferable Bastards
  • Suspended
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Male
  • Wandering wind swept streets where black rain runs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #155 on: April 25, 2012, 10:30:52 PM »
Azrael, what evidence is there that he provoked Trayvon, and what evidence is there that there was evidence tampering?  So far I haven't seen any at all.

Offline Etah dna Evol

  • I LIVE FOR THIS
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Every drop of blood, every bitter tear, every bead of sweat
  • Gender: Male
  • Cursed and freed
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #156 on: April 26, 2012, 12:58:02 AM »
Murdering someone that you stalked and provoked usually will get you arrested. Especially after a family member of yours tampers with the case to make things look more favorable and holds up the investigation for over a month.

Luckily for all of us, in America, trials determine that. Not the media.

Offline Malthas

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #157 on: April 26, 2012, 04:51:07 AM »
Azrael, what evidence is there that he provoked Trayvon, and what evidence is there that there was evidence tampering?  So far I haven't seen any at all.

You mean besides the fact that witnesses who talked with the cops have said that the cops tried to tell them it was Trayvon attacking and being the aggressor and that they heard Zimmerman calling for help instead of the other?     

Or how about how there is some recording of him basically confronting Travyson asking who he is before everything happens.

Quote
eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman about what she saw that night. She had already spoken out anonymously, but she came forward today with more information. She revealed that after the police brought her in for questioning, she offered to bring them to the scene of the crime and show them what happened, but they declined her offer.

She told Banfield that she heard two cries of help, the second one more of a ďdevastating, desperateĒ yell. She said she believes that the yell came from Martin, and heard them loudly arguing outside her window, even if she couldnít precisely decipher what she was saying. When Banfield asked if it sounded like a confrontation, she agreed. The eyewitness did call 911 and mentioned that she did hear a gun went off. She described the experience as like watching a movie and telling the dispatcher what was happening outside her home, play-by-play.

At one point, she held up her phone near the screen door so the dispatcher could hear what was happening. Banfield asked, when the gun went off, who it looked like was on top. The eyewitness answered that it looked like ďthe larger man,Ē meaning Zimmerman, was on top of Martin. At one point, Zimmerman started walking closer to where the eyewitness could see him, but could not discern whether his face was bloodied or not. When she was called in for questioning by the police, she said their questions did not necessarily have some depth to them, but merely just them asking her for a basic recap of what happened.

She offered to take them to the location of the crime, but claims that they were not interested. Banfield pressed her to explain why, but she said the police could answer that question better than her. And, in fact, the lead investigator told her that she misheard, and that it was Zimmerman who cried for help, not Martin. Following a community meeting to discuss the issue, she said she contacted the police two more times, but they did not get back to her.

That is not the only person who said the cops basically tried to change what she saw/heard as well.

Also what was up with the cops testing Trayvon's corpse for drugs yet didn't test Zimmerman at all?   As the law is suppose to do in such a case.   

Trayvon's parents didn't even get told their son was dead for two days despite them contacting police that their son was missing.   

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #158 on: April 26, 2012, 06:32:45 AM »
I was unaware that Zimmerman had a history of following Martin, that Martin filed a police report, and that Zimmerman had some form of protection order against him for stalking.

Stalking, despite the best attempts by the media, is a legal term that means Martin was, over a period of time, able to prove that Zimmerman was engaged in activity that fulfills the stalking statute. Following someone for a few minutes, while it makes for splashy headlines, is not the legal standard for stalking.

Offline vtboyTopic starter

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #159 on: April 26, 2012, 06:36:34 AM »
And you're already wrong, the law states that you can't carry a gun and provoke someone so you can use it. So he was engaged in illegal activity.

To what law are you referring? The "stand your ground" statute makes no mention of provocation. In any case, if there is some other statute in Florida the prohibits "provocation," whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack by Martin would still be an open question for trial.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #160 on: April 26, 2012, 09:19:24 AM »
To what law are you referring? The "stand your ground" statute makes no mention of provocation. In any case, if there is some other statute in Florida the prohibits "provocation," whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack by Martin would still be an open question for trial.

I've actually heard this from legal experts.  If you have a gun, and you go out and make someone mad enough that they lunge at you, you can't then claim 'self-defense' and shoot them.  You would be considered the 'first aggressor'.

Offline vtboyTopic starter

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #161 on: April 26, 2012, 12:39:06 PM »
I've actually heard this from legal experts.  If you have a gun, and you go out and make someone mad enough that they lunge at you, you can't then claim 'self-defense' and shoot them.  You would be considered the 'first aggressor'.

It's not quite that simple.

To constitute "provocation", barring a criminal defedant from asserting self-defense, the defendant must have engaged in conduct with the specific intentions of: (1) provoking the victim to respond with physical force; and (2) killing or severely injuring the victim. Moreover, in most jurisdictions (I don't know about Florida), mere verbalizations are insufficient to constitute provocation.

Thus, simply making someone mad enough to attack you, whether you are wearing a gun or not, is insufficient to bar the self-defense defense. Were this not the case, anyone who walks into a bar in Boston, for example, wearing a New York Yankees cap, would be at risk of forfeiting the right to defend himself in the event his apparel induced an assault. To lose the right to assert the defense, you must do something, and generally something physical, with the actual intention that your act will induce someone to attack you, and with the further intention that you will then inflict great harm on your attacker.

Whether Zimmerman, in "pursuing" Martin, intended to push Martin into attacking him so that he would have an excuse to shoot is a question with which the jury will have to grapple.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 02:20:45 PM by vtboy »

Offline Cythieus

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #162 on: April 26, 2012, 02:25:41 PM »
I like how so many of you are ignoring the past things Zimmerman did when asking me these questions even while other people state outright what I'm saying. As someone who lives with a lot of gun owners and has considered gun ownership myself there are a lot of things a person carrying a gun can't do. Like drink, or give someone the finger while driving, that's considered provocation. Stalking definitely falls into that category.

You're grasping at straws for this man to be innocent until proven guilty when he's already amassed some guilt just in the actions he admitted to doing and the ones he was shown to be doing before this.

As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

Also:

Thus, simply making someone mad enough to attack you, whether you are wearing a gun or not, is insufficient to bar the self-defense defense. Were this not the case, anyone who walks into a bar in Boston, for example, wearing a New York Yankees cap, would be at risk of forfeiting the right to defend himself in the event his apparel induced an assault. To lose the right to assert the defense, you must do something, and generally something physical, with the actual intention that your act will induce someone to attack you, and with the further intention that you will then inflict great harm on your attacker.

You can't legally carry a gun while intoxicated in most states and I'm pretty sure that in some you can't enter a bar with a gun, that's part of the law. If you're talking about regular self defense in the case of someone in a bar starting an argument that's different. But that's also why guns in bars are discouraged because stupid arguments like the one mentioned can turn into someone getting murdered.

Let's go over the facts we've got a gun owner breaking some of the rules of gun ownership. He's going looking for trouble.
The same person is also a neighborhood watch officer, breaking one of their rules, carrying a gun.
He was also stalking someone based on appearance, even if you take the race thing out all that he had to go on was appearance.
And you've got a seventeen year old guilty of minor assault (at best) who is now dead with the person who stalked, killed and provoked them basically acting like he was in his right to do so.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 02:37:25 PM by Azrael, Archangel of Death »

Offline vtboyTopic starter

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #163 on: April 26, 2012, 04:58:19 PM »
I like how so many of you are ignoring the past things Zimmerman did when asking me these questions even while other people state outright what I'm saying. As someone who lives with a lot of gun owners and has considered gun ownership myself there are a lot of things a person carrying a gun can't do. Like drink, or give someone the finger while driving, that's considered provocation. Stalking definitely falls into that category.

You're grasping at straws for this man to be innocent until proven guilty when he's already amassed some guilt just in the actions he admitted to doing and the ones he was shown to be doing before this.

As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

Also:

You can't legally carry a gun while intoxicated in most states and I'm pretty sure that in some you can't enter a bar with a gun, that's part of the law. If you're talking about regular self defense in the case of someone in a bar starting an argument that's different. But that's also why guns in bars are discouraged because stupid arguments like the one mentioned can turn into someone getting murdered.

Let's go over the facts we've got a gun owner breaking some of the rules of gun ownership. He's going looking for trouble.
The same person is also a neighborhood watch officer, breaking one of their rules, carrying a gun.
He was also stalking someone based on appearance, even if you take the race thing out all that he had to go on was appearance.
And you've got a seventeen year old guilty of minor assault (at best) who is now dead with the person who stalked, killed and provoked them basically acting like he was in his right to do so.

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying Zimmerman should be acquitted, much less that he shouldn't stand trial. There was sufficient evidence at the time of the shooting to establish probable cause for his arrest and, I suspect, to sustain a prima facie case at trial on, at least, manslaughter. The failure of the police and prosecutor to arrest and charge Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was a disgrace.

I also believe, though, that Zimmerman will be able to muster sufficient evidence at trial to require the judge to charge the jury to consider his affirmative defense that he shot Martin defending himself from an assault he reasonably believed would kill or seriously injure him, as well as the subordinate issue of whether Zimmerman provoked (as that term is defined by Florida law) such an attack. Not being privy to the evidence that will be offered by other side, I wouldn't presume to predict how a jury would find on self-defense. It may well turn out that Zimmerman will benefit from Florida's very poorly thought out statutes, as well as from the possible loss of evidence due to police inaction in the weeks following the shooting.

It would be a miscarriage of justice, as grave as the initial official indifference to Martin's death, however, if Zimmerman were barred from presenting his self-defense claim at trial. I have read a few Florida cases on the subject, and the evidentiary threshold a defendant must meet to submit the defense to a jury is quite minimal.

My Boston barroom example did not assume that the wayward Yankee fan necessarily defended himself with a gun. My point, in any case, was only that stoking another's anger is not sufficient, in itself, to make out the sort of provocation which would bar the fan from acting in self-defense.

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #164 on: April 27, 2012, 11:18:02 AM »
Ok, 784.048 is Fl's stalking statute. Since there still seems to be so much confusion over what stalking is I decided to post it.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the personís child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that personís property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

If you notice, stalking is the willful, malicious, and REPEATED following of a person with the intent of doing them harm. Zimmerman does not satisfy the elements of stalking. Please, let's try to be less like the media and more like educated adults in our conversations. Stalking is not some gee-whiz word that should be tossed about to get people angry or used to scare people. Zimmerman was not stalking Martin. Stop throwing that word around. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #165 on: April 27, 2012, 01:16:23 PM »
So - bringing this current (-ish - I'm watching this morning's hearing on DVR-delay).

George Zimmerman's attorney declared his client 'indigent for cost' during the bond hearing last Friday.  Family members were asked about his website (already taken down), and no one admitted to knowing about or having access to the funds that may or may not have been raised by it.  The judge set the bond, as was proper.  (Bond is supposed to be there to ensure you show up for trial, as you would be losing any assets that you put up if you don't show.)  Zimmerman met the bond, and was whisked off into GPS-monitored hiding. 

Today, Zimmerman's attorney announces that $200,000 was raised through the website.  Of that, $150,000 was available last Friday, which would have easily covered the bond.  Is there a problem here?

Offline Malthas

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #166 on: April 27, 2012, 01:20:45 PM »
As for Malthas's whole spiel about him calling for help and witnesses saying he was getting beat up. Getting beat up doesn't automatically mean you get to use a gun. Stalking someone with your gun and harassing them might get you beat up though. Simply being in a fight isn't just cause, especially when your opponent is unarmed and you shouldn't have been bothering them anyway.

I believe you misread my post or got my name mixed up with someone else.

I agree that he should have not have used a gun nor carried one around. 

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #167 on: April 27, 2012, 01:32:35 PM »
The bond issue shouldn't be a problem. It will depend on what the judge wants to do about it but as long as the bond is met, either through assets or money, the court is usually happy.

Money is most often used for bonds but property or other assets equaling the monetary value are just as good. It's not unreasonable for an account full of donations to be in limbo if those donations are not made to a single person, or are not made to an organization, or are made for a specific purpose. For instance, and I have no idea if this is the case here but it very well may be, donations for legal defense may only be available for legal defense and may only be accessible by the lawyers and, depending in Florida law, might not legally be usable for bond since that's not technically a legal defense expense.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #168 on: April 28, 2012, 01:43:52 AM »
You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying Zimmerman should be acquitted, much less that he shouldn't stand trial. There was sufficient evidence at the time of the shooting to establish probable cause for his arrest and, I suspect, to sustain a prima facie case at trial on, at least, manslaughter. The failure of the police and prosecutor to arrest and charge Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was a disgrace.

I also believe, though, that Zimmerman will be able to muster sufficient evidence at trial to require the judge to charge the jury to consider his affirmative defense that he shot Martin defending himself from an assault he reasonably believed would kill or seriously injure him, as well as the subordinate issue of whether Zimmerman provoked (as that term is defined by Florida law) such an attack. Not being privy to the evidence that will be offered by other side, I wouldn't presume to predict how a jury would find on self-defense. It may well turn out that Zimmerman will benefit from Florida's very poorly thought out statutes, as well as from the possible loss of evidence due to police inaction in the weeks following the shooting.

It would be a miscarriage of justice, as grave as the initial official indifference to Martin's death, however, if Zimmerman were barred from presenting his self-defense claim at trial. I have read a few Florida cases on the subject, and the evidentiary threshold a defendant must meet to submit the defense to a jury is quite minimal.

My Boston barroom example did not assume that the wayward Yankee fan necessarily defended himself with a gun. My point, in any case, was only that stoking another's anger is not sufficient, in itself, to make out the sort of provocation which would bar the fan from acting in self-defense.

It's really hard to prove you had probable cause to shoot an unarmed man outside of your house or car. If someone bursts into your home and you have reason to believe they are armed it's one thing. Someone in the street minding their business when you follow them is entirely different. No one in a legal field I've talked to thinks this is self defense, even the law's creator doesn't think it is.

Ok, 784.048 is Fl's stalking statute. Since there still seems to be so much confusion over what stalking is I decided to post it.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

If you notice, stalking is the willful, malicious, and REPEATED following of a person with the intent of doing them harm. Zimmerman does not satisfy the elements of stalking. Please, let's try to be less like the media and more like educated adults in our conversations. Stalking is not some gee-whiz word that should be tossed about to get people angry or used to scare people. Zimmerman was not stalking Martin. Stop throwing that word around.

Stalking isn't just a legal word, that's not how I'm using it.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #169 on: April 28, 2012, 02:36:08 AM »
stalk 2  (stŰk)
v. stalked, stalk∑ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.


Offline vtboyTopic starter

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #170 on: April 28, 2012, 10:07:13 AM »
It's really hard to prove you had probable cause to shoot an unarmed man outside of your house or car. If someone bursts into your home and you have reason to believe they are armed it's one thing. Someone in the street minding their business when you follow them is entirely different. No one in a legal field I've talked to thinks this is self defense, even the law's creator doesn't think it is.

Stalking isn't just a legal word, that's not how I'm using it.

With all the criticism drawn by the "stand your ground" statute in the wake of Martin's killing, it is hardly surprising that those who sponsored the law in the Florida legislature are now doing their best to put their misguided handiwork in the least damning light. The statute they passed, which is based on an NRA model, eliminates the legal duty to retreat from an attack as long as the defender has the right to be where he is and is not engaged in unlawful activity. There seems to be little question that Zimmerman was lawfully present at the scene of the shooting and that his "stalking" of Martin, in the sense you've used the term, was likewise lawful. If Zimmerman's testimony at trial is consistent with his account to the police (as reported in the media), and is accepted by the jury, the non-retreat privilege created by the statute will be available to him.

If the geniuses in the Florida legislature really didn't intend SYG to apply under circumstances like these, they should have enacted a different statute. Or, better yet, not tinkered with the law of self-defense at the behest of their NRA masters.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 07:37:14 AM by vtboy »

Offline Etah dna Evol

  • I LIVE FOR THIS
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Every drop of blood, every bitter tear, every bead of sweat
  • Gender: Male
  • Cursed and freed
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #171 on: April 29, 2012, 08:07:17 PM »
I probably won't bother to post in this thread beyond this quick statement, because it seems most of the people who have posted have made up their mind already and aren't about to change them.

But I want to inject a few facts into this dialog.

  • Martin is not from the gated community, he was staying with his fathers girlfriend for the first time ever.
  • Martin was wearing clothing that obscured his face.
  • Martin was walking between buildings.
  • There had been house burglaries in the neighborhood recently.
  • Stalking requires a pattern of behavior, which means that Trayvon had no just cause to commit felony battery and yes I do blame the kid. You donít get to brutalize people you feel are following you. Not the way it works.
  • Trayvon Martin is 17 years old, six foot three inches tall and 150 pounds. Not quite the impression the media gave everyone and more than capable of causing harm to Zimmerman.
  • Zimmerman is five foot ten inches tall and weighs between 160 and 170 pounds, not two hundred as the media initially reported. Which means it is more than reasonable to believe that Martin had the physical ability to harm Zimmerman.
  • Zimmerman is NOT WHITE. He is not Caucasian in the traditional sense. His father is Caucasian (much like Obama's mother), but his mother is Peruvian (from Peru, which is South America), he is obviously brown skinned and he speaks Spanish fluently. By every reasonable definition he is as much of an ethnic minority as Trayvon.
  • Zimmerman only mentioned Trayvonís ethnicity (African American) after the 911 dispatcher prompted him too, unlike the edited video shows that has made its rounds in the media.
  • Zimmerman has mentored African American youth and has no known history of racist tendencies.
  • Zimmerman has called police 7 times in the past several years, not 40 as the media originally reported.
  • Zimmermans firearm was legal. It was a legal concealed carry weapon. Please note that means that the firearm must as all times be concealed and open carry is explicitly illegal.
  • Zimmermanís account has the gun being exposed at his head was bashed into the side walk and Martin trying to grab it. If Zimmerman believed that if he didnít shoot Martin, Martin would take his weapon and kill him, he would be legally justified in using deadly force.
  • There are several 911 calls that place Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, there are no 911 calls that place Zimmerman in the role of the aggressor
  • By the time Zimmerman had gotten to the police, he had already been cleaned up by EMTís. Furthermore clarified tape shows a large gash on the back of his head that seems to confirm the part of his story that places Martin as bashing his head into the sidewalk.
  • Blood spatter probably doesnít work the way you think it works.
  • The original DA didnít fail to press charges because there is some great conspiracy to let a random person murder another random person. But because in Florida the Stand Your Ground Law is not a legal defense, it is an IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. District Attorneys by and large only press charges when they think they can win a case. Out of nearly 300 cases tried for murder, against people using the immunity contained in the Stand Your Ground Laws as a defense, there have been less than 15 convictions. Given the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard for prosecuting someone for murder, and the strength of the Stand Your Ground immunity, it is likely Zimmerman will be found Not Guilty.
  • If you believe that this is an open and shut case, then you likely lack basic legal knowledge and have been influenced by the media in some form or fashion.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #172 on: May 02, 2012, 10:42:42 AM »
Ok, so according to your first point Martin did not have a right to be there? Wrong. His father lived in that gated community, which gives him every right to be there and to be able to walk through the community without Barney Fife stalking him. Second, there is nothing illegal about wearing hoodies and if you try to say that gave Zimmerman grounds to immediately target him as a suspect, then you need help. It was raining. Pretty damn good reason to wear a hood if you ask me. Three, is it a crime to walk between buildings? If so, I am breaking the law every time I walk to the mailboxes at the front of the complex.

Now then. Stalking - the kind of stalking you are referring to does require a pattern of behavior. The kind of stalking Zimmerman did is what Kataban posted. Zimmerman made it a point to follow Martin even after being told the police did not need him to. Zimmerman made the choice to ignore what the police dispatcher told him. He made the choice to knowingly and willingly stalk someone he thought was up to no good. In my opinion, that right there removes any right to use Stand Your Ground as a defense against prosecution because it is the very first element of this whole Ďperfect stormí situation. If he had done what the dispatcher told him instead of rushing out to be Barney Fife none of this would have happened.

Not going to argue race or size differences. Iíve stated before I do not think it was racially motivated but I will point out, you donít have to be white to be racist so this whole trying to point out he is not Caucasian is ridiculous.

Link your source that says he has only called 7 times.

Not going to argue about the gun. I am a huge believer in owning guns and am working on my own concealed carry permit.

Zimmermanís account. Letís just point out the fact that Zimmerman is the only one who can have an account now. The dead cannot tell their side of the story, and as I stated above, Zimmerman has a vested interest in making sure that the story points to him being innocent. Do I trust anything that comes out of Zimmermanís mouth? No.

There is also 911 calls that experts have analyzed and said it was Martin screaming for help.

Iíll tell you right now, if I am walking home at night and someone is following me that I do not know and I cannot get away from them, I am going to do my damned best to physically harm them. You want to preach that Zimmerman was in fear for his life but did you ever stop to think that Martin knew he was being followed, had tried to get away from his follower and very likely was afraid as well?

All I am going to say about the police department: They left Martinís body in the morgue for THREE days without notifying his family. You cannot tell me they could not find out who he was because he had a flipping cell phone on him. Simple procedure to check the contacts list to find a family member, find the number of the phone and do a reverse check on it to see who the number belongs to, etc. That right there is sloppy police work. Two, witnesses have stated that the cops corrected THEM when they were giving their statements. That is called tampering with the reports. Their job was to take down the statements of those witnesses as the witnesses described. Not try and correct their stories to match Zimmermanís.

Zimmerman was carrying a firearm while acting as Neighborhood Watch. Direct violation of how the Neighborhood Watch works.

Zimmerman has had run ins with the law before. Has had reports from others that he has followed them without just cause and has been violent.

Yes, this is an open and shut case. Zimmerman tried to be Barney Fife. He shot and killed someone who would still be alive if Zimmerman didnít have a hard on for trying to be the law. At the very least this is Manslaughter.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
« Reply #173 on: May 02, 2012, 10:57:15 AM »

    • Zimmerman has called police 7 times in the past several years, not 40 as the media originally reported.

    He might have called the POLICE directly only 7 times.. but he's on record for something like 40 calls to 9/11 over the last 2 years.

    Offline Oniya

    • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
    • Oracle
    • Carnite
    • *
    • Join Date: Sep 2008
    • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
    • Gender: Female
    • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
    • My Role Play Preferences
    • View My Rolls
    • Referrals: 3
    Re: Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.
    « Reply #174 on: May 02, 2012, 10:58:18 AM »
    Because I'm interested - could you link me the bit about others reporting Zimmerman had followed them?  That's a new wrinkle for me.