Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[mistermack]

The police didn't acquit him. The didn't declare him either innocent or guilty. They only declared that there was insufficient evidence at the scene at the time to contradict his account.

OK, you like to be deliberately obtuse. I replied in kind to your comment that he shouldn't be convicted without a trial.
But of course, nobody ever said that he should, and it's totally impossible anyway. That is exactly as silly a comment as mine, if you take it literally in similar fashion.

And since when was a killer's account taken as true, unless there is sufficient evidence at the scene to contradict it?

The only circumstance I can imagine that happening is if the guy was a police officer, and even then, he would be normally suspended, and the event would be investigated exhaustively..

If it was a black man, and a white kid, he would have been arrested on the spot. Especially in a poorer area. Even IF there was no evidence at the scene to contradict his account.
That's the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard from a police officer.

And the fact remains, if a black man got involved in a fight, pulled a gun and shot the white kid he was fighting, he would be arrested on the spot. Quite rightly.

Nobody's saying this guy is guilty. But he should be tried before a jury, his defence of self-defence should be tested.

Having said that, most US juries are as crazy as the US police, so he would stand a fair chance of acquittal.

[maiforpeace]

The police didn't acquit him. The didn't declare him either innocent or guilty. They only declared that there was insufficient evidence at the scene at the time to contradict his account.

OK, you like to be deliberately obtuse. I replied in kind to your comment that he shouldn't be convicted without a trial.
But of course, nobody ever said that he should, and it's totally impossible anyway. That is exactly as silly a comment as mine, if you take it literally in similar fashion.

And since when was a killer's account taken as true, unless there is sufficient evidence at the scene to contradict it?

The only circumstance I can imagine that happening is if the guy was a police officer, and even then, he would be normally suspended, and the event would be investigated exhaustively..

If it was a black man, and a white kid, he would have been arrested on the spot. Especially in a poorer area. Even IF there was no evidence at the scene to contradict his account.
That's the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard from a police officer.

And the fact remains, if a black man got involved in a fight, pulled a gun and shot the white kid he was fighting, he would be arrested on the spot. Quite rightly.

Nobody's saying this guy is guilty. But he should be tried before a jury, his defence of self-defence should be tested.

Having said that, most US juries are as crazy as the US police, so he would stand a fair chance of acquittal.

That's a generalization if I ever heard one. Most?

I'm guessing if he had been arrested and tried in Sanford without all the media frenzy he might have ended up being acquitted.

[FBM]

@mistermack: Haven't you paid attention to the news? LOTS and LOTS of people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that the guy is guilty.

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else, if they were wise, should suspend judgement on all parties involved, including the police and the American people in general (who constitute the juries), until all available and relevant evidence is collected and analyzed. Doing otherwise is sloppy reasoning.

[mistermack]

That's a generalization if I ever heard one. Most?

I'm guessing if he had been arrested and tried in Sanford without all the media frenzy he might have ended up being acquitted.

Thanks. You make my point for me, better than I ever could.

[maiforpeace]

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else, if they were wise, should suspend judgement on all parties involved, including the police and the American people in general (who constitute the juries), until all available and relevant evidence is collected and analyzed. Doing otherwise is sloppy reasoning.

But what fun is there in that?

[FBM]

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else, if they were wise, should suspend judgement on all parties involved, including the police and the American people in general (who constitute the juries), until all available and relevant evidence is collected and analyzed. Doing otherwise is sloppy reasoning.

But what fun is there in that?

Exactly.

[Tyrannical]

Surely if you can stop someone and legitmately shoot them if you think you are in danger means if someone stops you and isnt a police that could be used to argue thats its ok to shoot them as the very act of grabbing someone in the street is potential lethal threat?.

Plainly its all vigilante madness, unless someone is actively about to hurt/kill another person no one should be using any violence at all including the police

Zimmerman was attacked and beaten by Trayvon and has the injuries to prove it. I'm sure when the autopsy report gets released we'll find knuckle abrasion marks on Trayvon's hands and a lack of other assault marks further proving he was the aggressor.

[mistermack]

@mistermack: Haven't you paid attention to the news? LOTS and LOTS of people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that the guy is guilty.

He should be held until a proper investigation is conducted, and everybody else, if they were wise, should suspend judgement on all parties involved, including the police and the American people in general (who constitute the juries), until all available and relevant evidence is collected and analyzed. Doing otherwise is sloppy reasoning.

Of course they are. And he probably is. Like I said, his actions were not of someone in fear of their lives. But the outrage is at the fact that the police treated it so flippantly, and didn't arrest the guy.

They are screaming and over-the-top at the clear bias of the police. And they have a right to. It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

[FBM]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

[tattuchu]

Surely if you can stop someone and legitmately shoot them if you think you are in danger means if someone stops you and isnt a police that could be used to argue thats its ok to shoot them as the very act of grabbing someone in the street is potential lethal threat?.

Plainly its all vigilante madness, unless someone is actively about to hurt/kill another person no one should be using any violence at all including the police

Zimmerman was attacked and beaten by Trayvon and has the injuries to prove it. I'm sure when the autopsy report gets released we'll find knuckle abrasion marks on Trayvon's hands and a lack of other assault marks further proving he was the aggressor.

The aggressor? I dunno. After being stalked, accosted and confronted by a man with a gun, a man with no legal authority over him as well, I'm not surprised the kid might resort to fisticuffs. Wouldn't you? I would.

Anyway, where are you getting these details, Ty? They're not in any of the accounts I've read.

[FBM]

Ex recto?

[Coito ergo sum]

Surely if you can stop someone and legitmately shoot them if you think you are in danger means if someone stops you and isnt a police that could be used to argue thats its ok to shoot them as the very act of grabbing someone in the street is potential lethal threat?.

Reductio ad absurdium.

The facts are what determines any individual case, and it can never be said that "any" excuse or "any" interaction will justify self defense. Self-defense, though, is a legitimate reason to use deadly force if one reasonably believes one to be in mortal danger or danger of grave bodily harm. That is the same almost everywhere. And, whether one reasonably believes one is in such danger depends on the facts and circumstances. The police make the initial determination as to whether they think a crime has been committed. In this case, we are told that Mr. Zimmerman was injured, apparently struck in the face, needed stitches in his head and was bleeding with grass stains on his back. He said he defended himself and shot the guy. According to some articles I read, a witness to the fight just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while Zimmerman yelled for help. They didn't arrest him.

PRESUMABLY the investigation continues. Just because the guy was not immediately arrested does not mean that they don't continue forensic analysis, have an autopsy, check the deceased's fists and clothing for signs that corroborate or counter Zimmerman's story, etc. Some investigations have lasted years and even decades before an arrest is made, even when the police think they know who did it.

Plainly its all vigilante madness, unless someone is actively about to hurt/kill another person no one should be using any violence at all including the police

Apparently, there is evidence that the police saw and heard at the time they began their response to the incident that there was violence being used against Zimmerman, and Zimmerman responded. That may turn out to be untrue. I don't know and you don't know. What I do know is that it is premature, because of that lack of knowledge, to say that "Plainly its all vigilante madness." That's not plain at all.

[mistermack]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

It's just my opinion. Based on many accounts of black people being arrested just for standing there when something happened. And your evidence to disprove this claim is?

Find me one instance of a black guy shooting a white kid, and not being arrested, if you please.
And I'll look for an example of a white guy shooting a black kid, and not being arrested. Oooooh look, I already found one !!!

[Tyrannical]

Surely if you can stop someone and legitmately shoot them if you think you are in danger means if someone stops you and isnt a police that could be used to argue thats its ok to shoot them as the very act of grabbing someone in the street is potential lethal threat?.

Plainly its all vigilante madness, unless someone is actively about to hurt/kill another person no one should be using any violence at all including the police

Zimmerman was attacked and beaten by Trayvon and has the injuries to prove it. I'm sure when the autopsy report gets released we'll find knuckle abrasion marks on Trayvon's hands and a lack of other assault marks further proving he was the aggressor.

The aggressor? I dunno. After being stalked, accosted and confronted by a man with a gun, a man with no legal authority over him as well, I'm not surprised the kid might resort to fisticuffs. Wouldn't you? I would.

Anyway, where are you getting these details, Ty? They're not in any of the accounts I've read.

The gun was concealed so Trayvon did not know he had a gun. Oh, and I would resort to words instead of fisticuffs.

It was a gated community and Trayvon was a visiting guest there. Zimmerman was just following the know your neighbors and question strangers rule. If you do not live there you do not belong there, that is what a gated community is. A gated community is not public property, it is private property held in joint trust by the community property owners. Zimmerman as an owner had every right to question if Trayvon belonged there.

[FBM]

...It's perfectly obvious, if the races were reversed, this guy would be in custody, and there is NO WAY his claim of self defence would not be tested in court.

This may or may not be true. Your evidence to support this claim is?

It's just my opinion. Based on many accounts of black people being arrested just for standing there when something happened. And your evidence to disprove this claim?

Find me one instance of a black guy shooting a white kid, and not being arrested, if you please.
And I'll look for an example of a white guy shooting a black kid, and not being arrested. Oooooh look, I already found one !!!

Inference from anecdotal evidence is inherently faulty (Pyrrho, Hume, et al). I have no bias driving me to desire to either prove or disprove any claims. My only aim is to point out sloppy reasoning and the foolishness of clinging to opinions based on emotionally or politically (not that there's a difference) charged biases. I'm not saying you're right; I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you don't really know, just as I don't really know. When someone who doesn't really know makes claims to knowledge, s/he can be said to be talking out of his/her ass, no?