Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[mozg]

Breaking news.... Zimmerman to be charged with 2nd degree murder.

It had to be. Now it will be up to our court system. It's going to be THE trial of this new century for us Americans.

He's going to be convicted.

There's not a jury in this country that can give him an impartial trial, The New Black Panther Party has already put a price on Zimmerman's life, which has not been investigated nor have any arrests been made. A police car has been shot in Sanford. The elderly couple completely unrelated to George Zimmerman were forced out of their home when Spike Lee tweeted their address as Zimmerman's. If Zimmerman were to be acquitted, the feds would take another bite at it by charging him for violating Martin's civil rights, and there will be a civil suit.

Plenty of the police, attorneys, judges and potential jurors remember the riots in LA in 1992, and that was before the Internet as we know it and instant communication of everything. Whether we ever know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, I don't think acquittal is a possibility. Guilty, not guilty, it no longer matters. Zimmerman's going to prison.

[kiki5711]

But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force—including deadly force—against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It’s not just that you’re under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, or rape.

Second, it’s not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.

Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.

And fourth, it doesn’t apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.

Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.

So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito: The second paragraph says that "Sonner" said the gash on Zimmerman's head "probably" was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment. How in the world does that, by any reading, mean that it was healing in the short time between the bashing on the ground and when first aid appeared on the scene? It doesn't say that at all. It says that Zimmerman didn't get stitches at the time and that he waited too long to get stitches. Wounds don't heal in an hour.

Exactly!!!!!!! You're contradicting yourself in one paragraph.

smashed head against concrete over and over, broken nose and all they had to do was just clean him up a bit?

I'm thinking you are so emotionally attached to this you can't read straight anymore.

No, I did not contradict myself.

The wound wouldn't heal in an hour -- and DIDN'T heal in an hour -- and the thing you posted DID NOT SAY that it healed in an hour.

It says that he waited too long to get treatment. How do you get from that that the allegation was that the wound had healed in the short time from the incident to the police station?

[Coito ergo sum]

Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the "stand your ground" law in 2005, said nothing in it allows people to "pursue and confront."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/f ... index.html

I'm fairly certain that Zimmerman isn't claiming he pursued or confronted, and that his defense will be the opposite of that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Breaking news.... Zimmerman to be charged with 2nd degree murder.

It had to be. Now it will be up to our court system. It's going to be THE trial of this new century for us Americans.

I'm hoping it ends up toppling all the handgun laws that arm these vigilantes and gets us headed back toward a civil society.

Back?

When was this "civil society" of which you speak?

[Warren Dew]

Did you mean to post a link with this post Warren?

Oops, yes, thanks. Here:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/polic ... ad-injury/

Top picture at the link is from the unaltered video at the original resolution, and shows the injury. Bottom one is the enhanced version, which also shows it.

[Warren Dew]

And, according to MSNBC:

Trayvon Martin's mom says she thinks his killing was an 'accident'

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ident?lite

[amused]

Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the "stand your ground" law in 2005, said nothing in it allows people to "pursue and confront."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/f ... index.html

I'm fairly certain that Zimmerman isn't claiming he pursued or confronted, and that his defense will be the opposite of that.

So far the discussion does imply that Zimmerman did pursue and confront. If the evidence supports that, and the law prohibits it, then the crime started when he stepped out of his vehicle, armed, with intent to pursue and confront.

[FBM]

Did you mean to post a link with this post Warren?

Oops, yes, thanks. Here:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/polic ... ad-injury/

Top picture at the link is from the unaltered video at the original resolution, and shows the injury. Bottom one is the enhanced version, which also shows it.

Thanks for that, Warren. I'm still waiting to see what the evidence says before coming down on either side of the fence. From that link:

Zimmerman-ABC-video-enhanced-caption.jpg (101 KiB) Viewed 429 times

[Tyrannical]

Zimmerman will skate.
It's his word against a corpse, and as long as the forensic evidence does not contradict his side of the story the rule of reasonable doubt will free him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the "stand your ground" law in 2005, said nothing in it allows people to "pursue and confront."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/f ... index.html

I'm fairly certain that Zimmerman isn't claiming he pursued or confronted, and that his defense will be the opposite of that.

So far the discussion does imply that Zimmerman did pursue and confront. If the evidence supports that, and the law prohibits it, then the crime started when he stepped out of his vehicle, armed, with intent to pursue and confront.

What is the evidence that he stepped out of his car with the intent to "pursue and confront?"

It certainly is not "pursuing and confronting" to step out of a vehicle and ask somebody what they're doing in the neighborhood.

What you're doing is drawing conclusions from the evidence that are not the only reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence we are both looking at.

Further, if he got out of his vehicle, and then he called 911, and then the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that," and then he said "ok" and then he walked around for a minute and a half coordinating with the police, and then Martin came back after him, then "pursue and confront" is really out the window, isn't it? Based on those facts?

[FBM]

Zimmerman will skate.
It's his word against a corpse, and as long as the forensic evidence does not contradict his side of the story the rule of reasonable doubt will free him.

Good point. That "beyond a reasonable doubt" part may be hard to accomplish in this case.

[kiki5711]

And, according to MSNBC:

Trayvon Martin's mom says she thinks his killing was an 'accident'

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ident?lite

And how do you interpret this statement exactly?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know if Zimmerman will skate. I suspect a HUGE amount depends on the forensics and ballistics evidence. There is a lot they can tell by analysis of the wound on Martin and the gun. If Zimmerman fired while laying on his back and with Trayvon holding and/or punching his face -- so it would be a point blank bullet entry - then the wound will be different than if he was several feet away and they were both standing. That should be something forensics analyses can determine.

If Zimmerman is lying, and the forensics shows that the two were standing or the gun was fired farther away than two grappling men would indicate, then he is probably toast, and probably rightly so. That, to me, is where a key piece of evidence exists and which is gettable. That may be what the prosecution was patiently waiting for. If they have it, unless it is shaky forensics work, he will likely be exposed as a liar and that will probably doom him.

Other key evidence will be the medical records. If the medical records show he had a fresh injury to his head and to his face, and Martin had abrasions on his hands from punching, then that would back up Zimmerman's story. If you get the preceding paragraph and you get no evidence of wounds, then Zimmerman gets another big strike.

We'll see about this whole thing.

I do find the calls for violence and the irresponsible calls to have Zimmerman lynched a bit over the top. I also find the media, unsurprisingly, miserable and almost useless in this regard. A group of white tea partiers meet and talk politics and hold signs, not only not engaging in any violence but also cleaning up after themselves, and NBC, ABC and CBS and CNN and MSNBC etc,. are all calling for a return to "civility" and raising alarms of "violence" from the "tea party right." Now there are actual calls for violence, bloodshed and racial riots and killing white people and we not only get hardly a peep from the media about it, but we get the fucking Attorney General of the US congratulating one of the biggest lying rabble rousers - Al Fucking Sharpton - and patting him on the back. Miserable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman will skate.
It's his word against a corpse, and as long as the forensic evidence does not contradict his side of the story the rule of reasonable doubt will free him.

Good point. That "beyond a reasonable doubt" part may be hard to accomplish in this case.

Well, if his story checks out, and if the forensics and witness testimony are consistent with his story, then there would be reasonable doubt.