Hey look, deadly force is excluded!Actually, its not if you read the entire law.
Yes, but seeing as how Zimmerman had left his vehicle, only the "Use of force in defense of person." section applies; that section bars the use of deadly force.
What if Zimmerman got ahead of Martin and was told by the cops to not follow. Zimmerman starts heading back, taking the path between the houses when Martin confronts him (following statements are supposedly what Martin's girlfriend heard on the phone):
Martin: "Why are you following me for?"
Zimmerman: "What are you doing around here?"
If at that point Martin throws the first punch, would he still be considered the "victim"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessaryThe question I have with the issue you raise is "can a 17 year old, lean, kid in great shape outrun a much older, out of shape guy?" If he can, then assaulting Zimmerman wasn't necessary.
See, I think the question I have is, why is someone allegedly part of the neighborhood WATCH (not the neighborhood vigilante society, he's just supposed to call cops which he did) 1) carrying a gun 2)following the "suspect" 3)into a dark alleyway if he didn't have a previous notion that things were going to get violent IF he did said following.
It just baffles me that- Trayvon felt threatened by a GUN WIELDING nutjob, therefore he should have fled and should never EVER have "stood his ground", because it's wrong and is fundamentally deleterious to a civilized society. And yet, Zimmerman feels threatened by a kid he is FOLLOWING WITH HIS GUN READY? Oh, well just wack the motherf++$er. You're taking a thug off the streets.
SYG has a section on Use of force by the aggressor, too. That's where both are justified in beating the hell out of each other. Not to nit-pick, but I'm not sure "victim" is a classification under SYG.
LT, how do you think this falls under 776.013 rather than 776.012?
Edit: In the version I'm reading, 776.012, is "Use of force in defense of person," which bars the use of deadly force.
2.) If Zimmerman was driving, then its even easier for Martin to get away. Martin can run places Zimmerman can't drive - back yards, for example.
No, because that's trespassing. And if he's trespassing then obviously Zimmerman is justified in CHASING DOWN AND SHOOTING A TEENAGER!
Why Zimmerman had a gun? He was told to get one by the police.
Stop misrepresenting it as what happened.
So explain to me why Martin isn't allowed to defend himself against a threat with fists when Zimmerman can defend himself with a gun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why Zimmerman had a gun? He was told to get one by the police.
No that's why he owned one. Not why he was carrying one around the neighborhood, chasing after a teenager, after the cops told him to wait in his car.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.) That's not true. Read section three of Florida law 776.013 again.
You think I'm wrong, You point me to what part of "does not have a duty to retreat" in a stautute known as "stand your ground" translates into he has a duty to retreat. Make an argument, not a backhanded insult.
2.) If Zimmerman was driving, then its even easier for Martin to get away. Martin can run places Zimmerman can't drive - back yards, for example.
I've linked the map 7 times. LOOK at it already. Move your mouse over the blue writing that says "Map" and click on it.
You're arguing "ifs" against things that are known to anyone that's done even a cursory examination of the facts. He tried to go somewhere a car couldn't follow. Zimmerman got out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation with his fists in light of the fact that there's no forensic evidence that that was the case. As soon as you do so, I'll answer your question.Stop misrepresenting it as what happened.So explain to me why Martin isn't allowed to defend himself against a threat with fists when Zimmerman can defend himself with a gun?
How is that relevant? Martin felt justifiably threatened by a guy stalking him. According to the same stand your ground law, he doesn't have to wait for a punch to be thrown by Zimmerman to try to subdue the threat.
He didn't start the altercation with his fist, he did with a car and a gun. Carrying a gun around your own neighborhood, following people into dark alleys is not a defensive maneuver, it's a predatory one. I think his actions as we know them speak volumes as to his intent: take a thug off the streets.
The fact that you're unwilling to answer my question just shows that you have no argument as to the moral implications of these acts. Zimmerman is a murderer.
Section 3 applies to Martin just as easily as it does Zimmerman; as has been pointed out before in this thread, I'm not sure following someone with a gun when the 911 dispatcher has said not to counts as "not engaged in an unlawful activity" on Zimmerman's part.
Did Martin know that he had a gun? If not, then please stop trying to imply that it was an issue that Martin could use to consider if deadly force on his part was needed.
"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
So now you have to prove that Zimmerman wasn't engaged in unlawful activity or that he has a right to be where he was. Since he was stalking someone (unlawful) after being told not to by the police (arguably interfering with a police investigation) on private property not his own (trespassing) I should think this law would not apply.
So now you have to prove that Zimmerman wasn't engaged in unlawful activity or that he has a right to be where he was. Since he was stalking someone (unlawful) after being told not to by the police (arguably interfering with a police investigation) on private property not his own (trespassing) I should think this law would not apply.
"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
There is a sidewalk between the houses, it is not private property. And since the prosecution isn't seeking charges on stalking as well as second degree murder, I think we can safely say that not even this prosecutor believes that is in fact a valid claim.
Did Martin know that he had a gun? If not, then please stop trying to imply that it was an issue that Martin could use to consider if deadly force on his part was needed.
We don't know. For all we know he was brandishing it, or wearing it visibly on his waistband. We know that Zimmerman had to have a gun license, but did he have a concealed carry license? If not, it would have been unlawful since it isn't lawful to open carry in Florida except under certain circumstances. If his gun was visible, I think that's enough to constitute a viable threat in Martin's mind.
There is a sidewalk between the houses, it is not private property. And since the prosecution isn't seeking charges on stalking as well as second degree murder, I think we can safely say that not even this prosecutor believes that is in fact a valid claim.So now you have to prove that Zimmerman wasn't engaged in unlawful activity or that he has a right to be where he was. Since he was stalking someone (unlawful) after being told not to by the police (arguably interfering with a police investigation) on private property not his own (trespassing) I should think this law would not apply.
"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
No, because prosecutors don't always charge for every single offense. We won't know that until evidence is presented in trial.
Did Martin know that he had a gun? If not, then please stop trying to imply that it was an issue that Martin could use to consider if deadly force on his part was needed.We don't know. For all we know he was brandishing it, or wearing it visibly on his waistband. We know that Zimmerman had to have a gun license, but did he have a concealed carry license? If not, it would have been unlawful since it isn't lawful to open carry in Florida except under certain circumstances. If his gun was visible, I think that's enough to constitute a viable threat in Martin's mind.
That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits.
From link above.
No, because prosecutors don't always charge for every single offense. We won't know that until evidence is presented in trial.
Sure not always, but a lot of times they do in order to get as much stuff on the guy as they can, so that if the jury decides not guilty on one count, they don't have all their eggs in one basket.
I think the Zimmerman side here is imagining a scenario in which Trayvon is beating the hell out of Zimmerman and he struggles for the gun and it goes off. It could easily have been Martin backing off when Zimmerman pulls the gun and shoots point blank, meaning he was no longer in physical danger when it happened.
Did Martin know that he had a gun? If not, then please stop trying to imply that it was an issue that Martin could use to consider if deadly force on his part was needed.We don't know. For all we know he was brandishing it, or wearing it visibly on his waistband. We know that Zimmerman had to have a gun license, but did he have a concealed carry license? If not, it would have been unlawful since it isn't lawful to open carry in Florida except under certain circumstances. If his gun was visible, I think that's enough to constitute a viable threat in Martin's mind.That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits.
From link above.
Then the question is whether it was concealed, which we don't know.
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation with his fists in light of the fact that there's no forensic evidence that that was the case. As soon as you do so, I'll answer your question.Stop misrepresenting it as what happened.So explain to me why Martin isn't allowed to defend himself against a threat with fists when Zimmerman can defend himself with a gun?
There's no evidence that Zimmerman or martin started the fight. We don't know anything about who started what other than Zimmerman's version of events, which, while quite possible, is also suspect.
Zimmerman felt threatened by a kid who was slamming his head repeatedly into the sidewalk.
Or, more accurately, "Zimmerman claims that he felt threatened by a kid who was allegedly slamming his head repeatedly into the sidewalk."
Ok, you say I need to read a law again but can't tell me what I'm missing. You ask for a map and then don't look at it. You tout violence as destructive to society but your problem is with someone you have randomly decided thrown the first punch rather than the person who was equally likely to have thrown the first punch and irrefutably elevated a fistfight to a gun fight.
Did I miss something?
So, it seems that for the last, like 100 posts, have been Citizen Thrall saying something that will get Citizen Meatrace or Comrade Inaros to say a whole bunch of stuff that can't be proven in a court of law and then he rips that stuff apart and then, say, Comrade Jeff says something or Citizen BNW posts a map and Citizen Thall continues to wail against Meatrace and Inaros again.
No offense, Meatrace and Inaros, but I think at this point Team Martin would be better off if you two would lay off.
Maybe I should have private messaged this, but whatever, I'm drunk.
Then the question is whether it was concealed, which we don't know.
Ok, so let's say it is in plain sight (I think we can safely say that is not the case given Zimmerman's statements to the police, but whatever) and the guy who you just asked "Why are you following me for?" responds with "What are you doing around here?" Wouldn't that make you think this guy was more of a rent-a-cop type then someone that was trying to kidnap you or rob you? Most kidnappers and robbers don't ask, "What are you doing here?" Do they? But a rent-a-cop type certainly might.
None of this points to who started what. Also, last I heard, martin had a small cut on his pinky knuckle - hardly massive bruising, but heck, it only takes one punch to break a nose.
There's no evidence that Zimmerman or martin started the fight. We don't know anything about who started what other than Zimmerman's version of events, which, while quite possible, is also suspect.I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation with his fists in light of the fact that there's no forensic evidence that that was the case. As soon as you do so, I'll answer your question.Stop misrepresenting it as what happened.So explain to me why Martin isn't allowed to defend himself against a threat with fists when Zimmerman can defend himself with a gun?We actually do know other stuff
1.) We know that there are bruises on Martin's knuckles and that Zimmerman had multiple defensive wounds.2.) We know from the only eye witness to the altercation that Zimmerman was under Martin and yelling for help
Rent a cops have uniforms, for precisely this reason.
So, it seems that for the last, like 100 posts, have been Citizen Thrall saying something that will get Citizen Meatrace or Comrade Inaros to say a whole bunch of stuff that can't be proven in a court of law and then he rips that stuff apart and then, say, Comrade Jeff says something or Citizen BNW posts a map and Citizen Thall continues to wail against Meatrace and Inaros again.
No offense, Meatrace and Inaros, but I think at this point Team Martin would be better off if you two would lay off.
Maybe I should have private messaged this, but whatever, I'm drunk.
put the bottle down, goblin.
put the bottle down, goblin.
GAH! DOn't tell him that! Its probably filled with alchemists fire!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
put the bottle down, goblin.
Okay. [Picks up the pipe.]
No one has yet said how BNW's map was vetted. How do we know it wasn't the result of an acid trip and then later handed off to BNW?
Yes, I saw your contesting of the map, but only after I posted.
BNW? Comrade Jeff?
you and some others are ignoring the fact that Martin had been doing that and had to stop because he was tired and out of breath. He ESCAPED twice but Zimmerman CONTINUED to stalk him. The fight started and ended the THIRD DAMN TIME.What's your evidence for that claim?
From the transcript
Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.
He’s running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
For the map
[Edit]Zimmerman himself said where the car was (by the mailboxes), and you can hear him start to run. (right before the 911 operator asks if George is following him)