Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

tryiong to use something as lack of attention as an argument is extremly naive considering just how viral videos and similar work, or actually the absolute lack of predictable pattern in them.

you cant say anything about why public attention didnt see this while it focuses so much about that without first mapping every input any person has, some of those inputs overlap but looking at an entire country, or in this case the world, is still as good as impossible.

Dox47 wrote:

You hit the nail on the head.

He claimed self defense. And until that claim is refuted and his is charged AND convicted of manslaughter he is innocent (in the technical legal sense) of wrong doing. First charge, then try, then convict. That is how we do it in the U.S. An act of murder (in the technical legal sense) is yet to be established. That would require a grand jury to indict.

I sense you have a Liberal hair trigger. And if the victim was a white boy you would not say boo! Could I be right?

ruveyn

Shooting an unarmed youth is murder. Stalking and intimidating an unarmed youth, in the name of racially charged vigilantism, and shooting him when he finally gets fed up and retaliates, even physically, is still murder. Zimmerman is a murderer, and he is walking free. He is walking free because murder is legal in Florida now.

A jury and a slick lawyer can prove just about anything. Besides, murder is now legal in the State of Florida, which was the point of this thread, or are you really that dense? I'm actually starting to think that you really lack the capacity to grasp this point, which is kind of sad: the point was that murder is now legal in the State of Florida. Just because you can make something legal under the law doesn't make it right. That includes murder, which is now legal in the State of Florida because the wording of the law is so vague that it actually does leave room for someone to claim "self-defense" under circumstances that would be considered to be murder outside of Florida and the mind of a truly sick man.

I have Tourettes, and that includes attacks of superficial rage (mock rage, as my psychiatrist calls it) that look a lot worse than they actually are, and Zimmerman could have blown my face off under nearly identical circumstances. I used to walk through a very black area on my way to visit with my grandmother. If some vigilante a**hole there had decided that, between my pronounced tics and the rage, that I was "demonically possessed," I could have died, and the killer would have been allowed to walk free, unscathed, under Florida's law.

A vigilante idiot harassing and intimidating someone, picking a fight with that person, and then shooting that person when he finds himself at a disadvantage is murder.

You are ignorant. I am thinking of this in terms of situations that I myself have been in. I wouldn't have had my head blown off for being black, though. It would have been for having Tourettes and coming across as eccentric and, in the mind of a truly ignorant person, "mentally unbalanced."

And you would have been shot for showing symptoms of autism. There is more than one form of profiling.

it sounds like Zimmerman provoked a scuffle and then shot Martin because of the scuffle. If Zimmerman brought about the "threat" to which he responding with deadly force, then his claim to self defense is flawed and he could be indicted for manslaughter.

Zimmerman was told by the police not to approach Martin, but he did. At Zimmerman called the police he was not under attack.

ruveyn

One can be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter for causing an automobile accident that leads to someone's death if there's evidence of recklessness or intoxication. I think what Zimmerman did is a step above that. Maybe not first degree murder, but definitely more deliberate than most manslaughter cases.

The line between Murder and Manslaughter is one where the person intended to kill the victim. If George Zimmerman had intended to kill Trayvon, he would have shot multiple times. From everything I've seen/heard/etc, he was shot once. Employing deadly force in a self-defense situation like this means that the objective is to *stop the attack* - NOT to *kill the bad guy*. Thus, it is manslaughter - taking an action that causes the death of another.

This is not a self-defense case.

The shooter was on the phone with emergency personnel at the time,
and is recorded as saying that he was pursuing his victim, and continued to do so despite the instructions of the operator.

There really isn't a leg to stand on.

There is nothing in the law preventing pursuit. In fact you can use your weapon to stop a "forcible felony" like a bank robbery or burglary that doesnt even involve you. So if you think there is crime where someone is in danger, you check it out, get attacked (you claim) and shoot them. It encourages guys like Zimmerman to play cop in a range of circumstances. But Zimmerman was a fat guy with no training.

George Will nailed it today:



The law does say you can use deadly force in any place "that you have a right to be". Does Zimmerman have the right to be in somebody else's backyard?

Murder is against the law but in some civil cases their are ways to murder another human being and not go to jail it happens all the time.

A grand jury will review the evidence on April 10. Hopefully this will bring formal charges of manslaughter at the very least, since there is the 911 record of Zimmerman being told to not pursue Martin. Yes, the law as written allows pursuit to prevent a crime (such as a burglery in progress). But there was no crime in progress. There was just a guy walking down the street.

It doesn't seem like it was a self-defense situation. The law is really f****d up if it allows anyone to chase down an unarmed person and then shoot them if they fight back physically when cornered.

Under this law it's key that you kill the other guy first. Once you have two people feeling threatened all bets are off.

Reminds me of that NRA backed bill that just passed in Indiana which says you can legally shoot a police officer if you feel he is on your property illegally or engaged in illegal activity. A cop commented that he's legally entitled to use force himself so you'll have two parties believing they are entitled to use deadly force. Won't end well.

As rabidly pro-gun as I am, there is one thing I agree with the pro-gun crowd on. It is BS that you have no duty to retreat in a public area. I definitely support the "Stand your ground" provision when it comes to your home, your car, and your place of business, but when it comes to public areas conflict avoidance should always be top priority and pulling a gun out should be an absolute last resort for when all else fails. While the f**k up mostly lies on the police, there is actually something wrong with the Castle Doctrine's "Stand your ground" provision being extended to public areas.

I'm also very cynical when it comes to the gun control crowd since I've seen so much condescending crap along with them using tragedy as a cheap excuse to soapbox, but I think the law is at fault here in this case. Yes, he went against the dispatcher's orders and his actions might not constitute reasonable force in court, but the fact that he has no duty to retreat in a public law makes this case stand on shaky grounds.

I think first degree murder is exactly what he deserves. Since he was chasing the kid around and provoking conflict, that constitutes premeditation and malicious intent. You would get first degree murder if you even accidentally kill someone during the commission of a felony since the felony constitutes premeditation, so it's only fitting that murder one is what he gets charged with since he instigated what lead to it.

The fact that he instigated the conflict means that the stand your ground law *does not apply* - and he *does* have a duty to retreat.

I'm not saying that it would still be considered reasonable force even after it has been established that you instigated the whole thing, but that it would be hard to establish who the instigator was in the first place if there is no duty to retreat in a public area. I am aware that the definition of self-defense is specifically defined and not arbitrary like the gun control folks here are making it out to be. The whole notion "You only have to feel threatened to get away with shooting someone!" is rhetorical BS since terms like "imminent threat" and "reasonable force" are specifically defined in law and you can't just pull your own definition out of your ass and expect the court to buy it.

That's not my issue, my issue is that it becomes much greyer when you have no duty to retreat in a public area since it is harder to establish who's in the right and who's in the wrong if one party isn't taking measures to avoid conflict prior to using deadly force. Prevention is the best measure against all the contingencies a grey area presents.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Mar 2012, 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.