Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Hermit]

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

That point has been made several times now, and I don't think anyone is denying it. Getting out of a car and following and confronting someone one suspects of intending to commit a crime is not a crime itself. Shooting someone dead without realistically feeling threatened to be killed by the eventual victim is.

Of course there is a possibility that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke Martin into doing something rash, just so he can shoot him, then plead self defence, but I doubt there's enough evidence to decide that either way.

[Coito ergo sum]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

Stand your ground is not even in play in the Zimmerman case, is it?

Stand your ground just means that if you have a right of self defense in a given situation that you don't have to retreat. Based on Zimmerman's story, he would not be able to retreat. Nobody can really argue that when he's laying on his back being beaten that he had a reasonable route to retreat from the scene rather than using deadly force.

And, frankly, there probably are problems with stand your ground in general, but there are ALSO problems with a self-defense law that requires a person who was attacked to evaluate the situation in light of whether some other "reasonable person" would think they could run away. The reason the stand your ground law was enacted was because people who were attacked or assaulted were getting put in jail because they had to act quickly and made the decision to use deadly force instead of retreating. I can certainly empathize with a victim of an attack who may not know in the split seconds of time allowed whether retreating is really an option, where a boat load of 20-20 hindsighters will flyspeck the incident in slow motion second guessing high-stress, rapid decisions.

[Coito ergo sum]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

I bet if she knew she was going to get 20 yrs for that, she would have shot him dead instead. Now if she shot him and claimed self defense, she'd get off free. She should have shot that bastard dead.

I had to laugh when I read the article. Problem with stand your ground law? Do you folks think that repealing stand your ground would have HELPED that lady? She didn't get convicted because of stand your ground, she got convicted because self-defense and stand your ground rules were not expansive enough to protect her in that situation, which is what you folks who oppose stand your ground want. You'd even take away stand your ground as a possible defense for this woman!

The problem with stand your ground in the case Mai linked to was that the court didn't allow the woman to invoke it. So, if you're citing that case as illustrating a "problem" with stand your ground, your problem is that the defendant didn't get to assert the defense! Which is it? Do you want stand your ground or not?

It also has added fuel to the controversy over Florida's "stand your ground" law, which the judge would not allow Alexander to invoke. State Attorney Angela Corey, who also is overseeing the prosecution of shooter George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, stands by the handling of Alexander's case. Corey says she believes Alexander aimed the gun at the man and his two sons, and the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1vhEMeuUv

Maybe the problem is the "anti gun" lobby petitioning for enhanced penalties for anyone who fires a gun during the commission of a felony:

The state's "10-20-life" law was implemented in 1999 and credited with helping to lower the violent crime rate. Anyone who shows a gun in the commission of certain felonies gets an automatic 10 years in prison. Fire the gun, and it's an automatic 20 years. Shoot and wound someone, and it's 25 years to life.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1vhEoQ3pg

The woman was committing a felony and shot a gun at her husband, and apparently according to Prosecutor Corey (the same prosecutor as in the Zimmerman case, actually) she fired it at her two sons too!

The Alexander case was the case of a woman who says she fired the shot in self-defense.

In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."

Alexander's case was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who is also prosecuting George Zimmerman. Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... er-ground/

Other than the fact that Alexander is a woman, how is the result in this case not EXACTLY what the anti-stand your ground law folks want?

[Coito ergo sum]

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

That point has been made several times now, and I don't think anyone is denying it. Getting out of a car and following and confronting someone one suspects of intending to commit a crime is not a crime itself. Shooting someone dead without realistically feeling threatened to be killed by the eventual victim is.

Of course there is a possibility that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke Martin into doing something rash, just so he can shoot him, then plead self defence, but I doubt there's enough evidence to decide that either way.

And, to add to that...if Zimmerman had murderous intent, why would he call 911?

[Tyrannical]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

I bet if she knew she was going to get 20 yrs for that, she would have shot him dead instead. Now if she shot him and claimed self defense, she'd get off free. She should have shot that bastard dead.

She'd have gotten first degree murder charges.

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

She had a restraining order against him, then she illegally violated the restraining order by going to her former residence where he lived. Then she illegally entered the house that she no longer lived in. Technically, this is burglary.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

"Feared" for her life by running outside to her car to get her gun and then reentering the house and shot at her ex


If she had stuff she needed to retrieve, she is supposed to make arrangements with the police via a judge.

[Coito ergo sum]

If she was a man, nobody would be batting an eye about the case. The man going out to the garage to get his gun, coming in and scaring the fuck out of his estranged wife and kids, by firing it near them, even a "warning shot" would be laughed out of the room, if he tried to claim self-defense. IMO.

[Hermit]

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

That point has been made several times now, and I don't think anyone is denying it. Getting out of a car and following and confronting someone one suspects of intending to commit a crime is not a crime itself. Shooting someone dead without realistically feeling threatened to be killed by the eventual victim is.

Of course there is a possibility that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke Martin into doing something rash, just so he can shoot him, then plead self defence, but I doubt there's enough evidence to decide that either way.

And, to add to that...if Zimmerman had murderous intent, why would he call 911?

He's not charged with murder now, is he? I think you're stretching your bow beyond breaking point here.

[Coito ergo sum]

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

That point has been made several times now, and I don't think anyone is denying it. Getting out of a car and following and confronting someone one suspects of intending to commit a crime is not a crime itself. Shooting someone dead without realistically feeling threatened to be killed by the eventual victim is.

Of course there is a possibility that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke Martin into doing something rash, just so he can shoot him, then plead self defence, but I doubt there's enough evidence to decide that either way.

And, to add to that...if Zimmerman had murderous intent, why would he call 911?

He's not charged with murder now, is he? I think you're stretching your bow beyond breaking point here.

Second degree murder is the charge. So, yes he is.

[Hermit]

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

That point has been made several times now, and I don't think anyone is denying it. Getting out of a car and following and confronting someone one suspects of intending to commit a crime is not a crime itself. Shooting someone dead without realistically feeling threatened to be killed by the eventual victim is.

Of course there is a possibility that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke Martin into doing something rash, just so he can shoot him, then plead self defence, but I doubt there's enough evidence to decide that either way.

And, to add to that...if Zimmerman had murderous intent, why would he call 911?

He's not charged with murder now, is he? I think you're stretching your bow beyond breaking point here.

Second degree murder is the charge. So, yes he is.

Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not require proof of intent, does it? You, and others seem to be sidetracked by an issue now, albeit from opposite sides, that is irrelevant, to say the least. That's what I was pointing out in my previous post.

[Tyrannical]

First degree murder requires premeditation.
Zimmerman would have to be coon hunting to get first degree.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes it does require intent.

It doesn't require premeditation and deliberation, but it is still intentional homicide. 2d degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. First degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation.

How am I sidetracked? Others have raised the issue that he had the intent to provoke Martin so that he could kill Martin in alleged self-defense. I just wondered why someone with that sort of intent would call 911, guaranteeing the cops would be there to examine the fresh crime scene.

[maiforpeace]

Yes it does require intent.

It doesn't require premeditation and deliberation, but it is still intentional homicide. 2d degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. First degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation.

How am I sidetracked? Others have raised the issue that he had the intent to provoke Martin so that he could kill Martin in alleged self-defense. I just wondered why someone with that sort of intent would call 911, guaranteeing the cops would be there to examine the fresh crime scene.

Even I think that's ridiculous.

I still stand by my belief that it was an accident gone wrong...wrong on BOTH sides. To what extent or percentage remains to be seen. It's not as simplistic as he started it, so he's responsible...whoever 'he' is.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes it does require intent.

It doesn't require premeditation and deliberation, but it is still intentional homicide. 2d degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. First degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation.

How am I sidetracked? Others have raised the issue that he had the intent to provoke Martin so that he could kill Martin in alleged self-defense. I just wondered why someone with that sort of intent would call 911, guaranteeing the cops would be there to examine the fresh crime scene.

Even I think that's ridiculous.

I still stand by my belief that it was an accident gone wrong...wrong on BOTH sides. To what extent or percentage remains to be seen. It's not as simplistic as he started it, so he's responsible...whoever 'he' is.

Legally, it kinda is. If Zimmerman started the fight, then he can't really claim self-defense. If Martin punched him, knocked him down, broke his nose and smashed his head in the ground, then he might reasonably exert self-defense.

If there is reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, he has to go free. Criminal cases are not about apportionment of probable fault. That will be left to the inevitable civil suit.

[FBM]

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE

In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

First-degree murder in California includes a killing that is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated," or that is committed in the perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate, certain felonies, including burglary, and not including the petty offense of shoplifting. Cal. Penal Code S 189.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m053.htm

Second Degree Murder Definition

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... ition.html

[amused]

Zimmerman got out of his car, armed, with intent to start some shit.