Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

Anonymous witness says Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman; friends dispute claim

Hi Raptor,

"Read up on it just a little will ya.....":



The Colorado State Supreme Court addressed a similar absurdity decades ago, so, again, "Read up on it just a little will ya.....":

The case of "People v. Guenther, 740 P. 2d 971 - Colo: Supreme Court 1987" includes a "wisdom alert":

"There is a constitutionally significant difference in kind between requiring a defendant, on the one hand, to bear the burden of proving a claim of pretrial entitlement to immunity from prosecution and, on the other, to carry the burden of proof at trial on an affirmative defense to criminal charges. Section 18-1-704.5(3) creates a benefit to a defendant far greater than an affirmative defense. If the statute is found to apply to the facts of the case, it will completely prohibit any further prosecution of charges for which, but for the statute, the defendant would otherwise be required to stand trial. Although the wisdom of such legislation is not for us to decide, it cannot be disputed that the immunity created by section 18-1-704.5(3) is an extraordinary protection which, so far as we know, has no analogue in Colorado statutory or decisional law."

Part/Section IV, B: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Oh Well!! !! There Goes "Law & Order".

“All you have to say is that you reasonably believed you were threatened, and the only person who can dispute that is the person you have just killed,” says Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... ?ref=fpblg

Poor NRA!! ! Is this like Baby Bush claiming "State's Rights" versus the Feds, then the Baby Bush running to the Supreme Court when he doesn't like his cake??? Maybe the NRA took a little too much rope from the A.L.E.C.......

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/nra-trayvon-martin

Tadzio

Even if that were true, it doesn't necessarily change anything. Unless Trayvon was literally beating this man to death, he *started* the conflict, so he has the duty to retreat before employing deadly force.

Having said that, there are some holes in that story.

First, how does the media know about this "source"? Police don't comment about ongoing investigations.

Also, if this really did happen, why would you need to go all the way upstairs to get to a phone to call 911 (most people have phones in their kitchen, etc)?

Finally, assuming this really did happen, and he really did have to go all the way upstairs to get to the nearest phone, where is the 911 recording?

So, you cited a portion of the FL law that deals exclusively with LEO (Law Enorcement Officers), and cited a bunch of nonsense from the Brady Campaign? Go read up on it somewhere that's NOT biased...

And that points out a problem with such laws -- sometimes (maybe often) the only other eye witness to the crime is dead. So, the survivor gets to make up whatever story s/he likes. And, someone like Zimmerman who is looking for trouble is likely to be be armed with the bigger weapon than some random person on the street who he shoots.

So, if you're a paranoid, self-appointed guardian of the neighborhood with a carry permit and an itchy trigger finger, then you're all set to kill without consequence. (Unless you're black, anyway.)

If he got attacked from behind and cried out for help before shooting as he claims he did then I would say he was trying to deescalate the situation. I'm not so sure that Mr. Zimmerman is telling the truth however and agree that he should be trialed. If it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, Zimmerman is a straight up murderer.

Well I quickly read through all the drivel but this pretty much sums up the gist of your cause in this thread and others like it:



"Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence", what a laugh....

I won't even ask what Bush has to do with all this..........

A double eye-roll for you.

If that were true, no one would doubt the validity of what Mr. Zimmerman said and this wouldn't be an issue that we were talking about here. The facts of the case here point to Mr. Zimmerman using excessive force, and he will probably stand trial as a result. There is ample evidence to charge and convict him, so your point is entirely moot.

On the other side of the coin - if someone with a knife comes at me and I'm forced to shoot them, there is no-one to back me up that I actually tried to get away and I may be convicted of manslaughter for doing *nothing* wrong. The "stand your ground" laws serve to provide a legal defense for those of us who carry as a matter of course, and are faced with an over-litigious society. In instances where they are abused, the facts of the case usually point to something not being right (as they do in this case).

Florida has an immunity from prosecution clause, which is *not* the same as the "stand your ground" law. What this does is essentially provide injunctive relief for anyone who is charged where the government has failed to make the case that they are not covered by that immunity. The practical effect of this is that prosecutors are hesitant to raise charges if they can't 100% back them up - because they face a huge lawsuit if they can't. This is exactly why Mr. Zimmerman hasn't been charged as of yet.

Crying for help is not de-escalating the situation, it's crying out for help. I very much doubt Mr. Zimmerman got attacked from behind, as he was *following* the kid. That also doesn't explain how he ended up in the grass *on his back*.

Also, Mr. Zimmerman is absolutely not guilty of Murder. Murder is deliberately killing another person. Mr. Zimmerman had never met Trayvon Martin (presumably) before, and didn't have any reason to want to kill him. What he is guilty of is Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter, which is defined as taking action that results in someone's death. Since he didn't specifically want to *kill* Trayvon, the charge is Manslaughter.

If it's true that he saying "f*cking coons" on the dispatcher tape, then he's dumber than I imagined. He might be saying, "F*cking cones", but I don't know why he would say that. Sounds bad to me.

You can defend yourself with deadly force if you ARE threatened.

ruveyn

This is Mr. Zimmerman's claim, that he was attacked from behind walking back to his SUV. What else is deescalating a situation? If someone is one top of you punching you in the face, what are you suppose to do in that situation to deescalate it?

If it was Trayvon Martin crying for help because Mr. Zimmerman pulled out a gun, essentially begging for his life, then I think it would be murder.

You can kill someone *you say* threatened you in some way, even if it was just with fists. There is a bar to prosecution so the Police must establish that it didnt happen like you said before they can charge you. Even if they charge you the judge can toss it, as can the jury. But if you're the only one left alive.... well... you can say whatever you like.

You can get away with killing an unarmed person. It's happened many times. If the Trayvon case had not become a national story, this would already be a done deal.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... adly-force

My town is the safest place I've ever been, and it's because almost everybody in town is armed. Really. It's in the middle of nowhere, so people aren't just passing through and see a good store to rob. We had a store robbed here several years ago but that's it. It turned out that it was set up by the manager. Nobody locks their doors or cars here, and in fact many people leave their keys in their cars. Everybody here knows that everybody else is armed. Nobody is going to try anything stupid like robbery, etc.

It's not so safe because the townspeople are particularly moral either, we have the usual amount of drug and domestic violence and DUI crime, and bounced checks, etc. We just don't have people doing things they know they are going to get shot over. There hasn't been a shooting here in a long, long time. Not even an accidental one. Not only do the folks here carry guns, they grow up learning how to safely handle them.

How is that such a problem?

What? What some internet board or even the whole country thinks matters not at all. What matters is what the officials in charge of the area think. And, as to what they think, the case was not investigated.

And Zimmerman is still not arrested, and his blood was not checked for intoxicants. There is no telling what other evidence was not collected and is now destroyed. From the first step the intention was that Zimmerman was to be set free and remain uncharged. I suppose that, perhaps, as you note below about prosecutors being reluctant not to prosecute non "slam-dunk" cases, the police were told not to even bother arresting people for self-defense situations.


I dunno. Maybe all he has to say is that he thought the can of Arizona Iced Tea was a gun. He was smart enough to include "he has his hand in his waistband" in his 911 call.


And if the guy with the knife kills you, he gets off because he'll say he was defending himself from you.

The advice a neighbor cop gave my dad once was, "if you have to shoot someone, make sure that that they die. Otherwise, you'll have no end of trouble in court." I suspect that is why you never hear about people surviving police shootings.


Yes, that is my understanding. It appears that there is no way forward except for the feds to get involved.

Isn't it strange, because I can say exactly the same thing about my town - where it's totally illegal to be armed in the sense that America allows it, and we have never, ever had a shooting here. Not one.