i say he acted within his leagle boundries adn should be free and walking around if hes not already. his record shows hes made some smart calles and the 46 police calles ended up getting alo tof criminals out of the local area.
Printable View
i say he acted within his leagle boundries adn should be free and walking around if hes not already. his record shows hes made some smart calles and the 46 police calles ended up getting alo tof criminals out of the local area.
Yes, let's not bother with justice in the matter and just set him free. Really? Ludicrous. Someone died and there ought to be a trial. Sure glad you're not in charge here. Unbelievable.
well nothing towards you but if he was attacted and shot the guy while he was reciving a beating from him then he was defending his own life and even if he does got to a full out trial its better to be judged by 9 than carried to the grave by 6.
I think a quote from the article linked earlier in the thread helps sum up why this thing has turned into a media frenzy...
"The crowd was acting off of emotion without knowing all of the facts of this case,"
And we still do not know "the facts" but I can tell you one thing, if I had a gun on me and someone punched me in the face and had me on the ground bashing my head on the concrete and I had a fear that I might not live through it well... you can figure out the rest.. and we are assuming that is what actually happened since we have no conflicting evidence to go on (as the court will as well)
Regardless if Travon or Zimmerman started the confrontation, once someone is on the ground, helpless, the stand your own ground law goes out the window, that is assault. If Travon stopped beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground, none of this would have happened either. Why was he at the guys truck that he was "scared" of that was following him in the first place. Basically the guy stepped up thinking he was going to teach Zimmerman a lesson, and unfortunately for him he had a gun on him.
The 911 tape does tell me something when he references Travon "reaching for something in his pants", that shows me he had a fear that he had a gun as well. And in the case of self defense it is weither or not you have a fear for you life, making him more in his right to defend himself if he was attacked. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was trying to provoke him, and unless I hear evidence of that I will have a hard time changing my mind.
Legally I see no issues with what happened from what evidence is out there. Morally it is up to each individual and everyone has a right to believe what they want in that respect. The two have no business mixing though.
I don't know, if Zimmerman listens to the 911 operator no one gets shot and he can tell his buddies about that time he scared off the hoodlum with skittles.
Whether it is self defense or murder, I do not know. I am sure he defended himself once he was in a losing situtation, I guess the argument is was he the aggressor. With one party dead and the apparent multiple fark ups by police, like correcting a witness on her testimony, who knows what will happen with this.
Zimmerman has a bright future ahead of him in terms of book sales, tv appearances, and political tool I think.
I don't understand this arguement either. According to what is laid out on the table now Travon came back to his car when Zimmerman was not actively pursuing, so following, not following would not necissarily enter into the equation. Nor is that reason for standing your own ground, leagally there is nothing wrong with following someone. In addition the operator states that they do not NEED him to follow him, which the 911 operator is not an authority, and is just more than likely trying to keep him away from harm. Zimmerman had a good bit of experience with neighborhood watch and had probably heard this several other times and not listened... in the other cases though he got the bad guy arrested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
He deserves a fair trial no matter what, and from what is going on so far that is not going to happen. There is a chance the grand jury would throw it out and because of that they were not allowed to vote on it, which is the whole point of the grand jury and part of a fair trial IMO. If evidence does come up that he was the aggressor then by all means he needs to be punished. I just see no angle for that to come from at this point other than someone lying, but as always I could be wrong...
As a lifelong NRA member,gun collector,gun advocate, avid duck hunter,believer in the right to bear arms.
One thing sticks in my craw,Once was a time not to long ago,before CCW and all the stand your ground B.S when people did not pack Guns.two guys get in a fight,getting killed never really happend,you might get the crap beat out of you,but it usually made you a better person in some ways.
A society where everyone is allowed to carry guns scares the hell out of me,some bad guys may get killed,but alot of innocents will also,Just my two cents,carry on:)
"An Armed Society is a Polite Society", Robert A. HeinleinQuote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
If you think so,thats okay,ever been to japan?
The problem to me is this law basically devalues life. Instead of trying to extricate yourself from a situation heading south it gives you more bravado. It's the old "strap on a gun and walk ten feet tall". As an ex law enforcement dude we are trained lethal force is the very last thing you do. You don't maneuver yourself into a situation where you can take someones life and then call it self defense.
Think about this scenario. You wife is at the mall by herself and it's night and dark and as she is leaving the mall to walk to her car she notices a big mean looking dude following her maybe 20 feet away. As she walks he's still there and getting closer. 15 feet away and getting closer, 10 feet and getting closer and there ain't even that many cars parked where's she out now. he suddenly breaks into a run and she panics and pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. No witnesses and she says she feared for her life cause he was menacing her. It turns out the dude was parked next to her. Think she'd have a problem in a state like Florida? I know of cases in my state where women have used OC spray on guys in this very scenario.
Also in cases like this though the shooter may have no criminal liability there most certainly will be a civil lawsuit and in that case the law won't mean 2 cents to a civil jury who may have a different idea what a justified action is and the shooter could wind up owing millions to the family.
If your comfy its just a threat, its the BEST gameplan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
If you believe they are actually going to shoot you (not that you could ever know for certain) you are better to jump them. The moment you are past arms reach, you have nothing protecting you, within arms reach, at least you have a chance to control where the gun is pointing. Probably still get killed, but the odds of survival are a bit better than the 3 foot to 30 foot range running away.
It is interesting you call it murder right before saying you don't see it as a black/white issue - oh, I just realized you meant race. I was thinking maybe you meant it is a gray issueQuote:
Originally Posted by joesixpack
I have no idea who these people are or what happened besides that one guy was killed. So to me, conclusions can only be jumped to and are probably trivial anyway, even if they are irrelevant and entertaining at the same timeQuote:
Originally Posted by joesixpack
This story is way over-hyped
The tim tebow of manslaughter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Or he means to attack her and she reaches for a gun except she doesn't have one because the law wouldn't allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
If the scenario you describe was really a problem you would hear about more shootings like this in the news. The opposite is true. You NEVER hear about a CCW person defending themselves. Once the attacker is confronted with an armed victim it usually ends the confrontation without violence.
You make excellent point though your speculation on the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
However that is all anyone can do, speculate.
We need to let the legal system work. I say legal system, and not justice system, because we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system and hope that through the legal system justice is obtained.
Actually if you can put at least 10 feet or more between you and the shooter and you stay on the move the chances of being hit are very low. Most people including crack shots can't hit the broad side of a barn if its moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by LameBMX
I threaten you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995
you attack because you feel threatened.
I pull a gun and shoot you.
Now I get a pat on the back and walk away?
That is what you are arguing.
I agree with you 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
I am definitely not arguing that one party is or is not guilty. We have very little accurate information to go by.
But he should have been brought before a grand jury because we can see that there is enough confusion and uncertainty as to what happened, that just sending him home with a 'no harm no foul' doesn't cut it.
And unfortunately, I think that one of the conclusions in this case is that the SYG law is a piece of crap.
It's called the Castle Law in Texas and I for one am glad it's here. There have been no problems with it since it was enacted and extends your home protection from prosecution to your car. You shouldn't be arrested for shooting a car jacker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I don't know if this is included in the Florida law, but if you provoke or threaten the person before you shoot them the protection goes away.
That is what this whole case will be about. It is not about whether Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman or not. It will all be about whether he was justified in attacking Zimmerman or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Not exactly, that easy, there is no legal justification to "Attack" he can only "Defend" himself, this is going to be a twisted convolution of wording when it gets to court...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Things that have made me go Hmmmm so far
1. The Media
2. No Grand Jury
3. Zimmerman's injuries to the back of the head
I think this really will boil down to who engaged, who actually initiated contact...
Well, if a guy comes up to you when you are in your car and sticks a gun a few inches from you I don't think you are going to be going for a gun to shoot which means after he's in the car and driving away you shoot him then? What happens if you hit another car and hit someone and kill them? Or if the guy starts shooting back at you and hits someone because you provoked the gunbattle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
It can be a slippery slope. Bad laws all of them.
You should not shoot anyone for a car, you have to live with yourself the next day. Now, I do agree that inside your home, you have the right to protect life. Come inside my home, you'll have a problem. I will not kill for a car. If I point my gun at you, my intention is to kill. (I would not worry about me however since I really suck at shooting.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
I don't know if you mean there is never a justification to attack or in this case. In general, you can attack to defend another. Also, eyewitness testimony is mostly inaccuarate and deteriorates with time. We would take statements (stenographic, now video) as soon as possible when investigating. Usually within the same day. If we needed more detectives, we brought them in so the "eyewitness" did not add stuff to their statement from "other sources." We did a canvass of the area to identify the witnesses immediatly, so we did not grow more "eyewitenesses" the next day.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
These investigations can take several not months to put together but everyone wants them done in days. I am very familar with the pressure caused by the politics and the press in sensationalized cases. The problem comes when the investigating and prosecuting agencies succumb to the pressure (as in this case). At that point the investigation can be flawed and it will never regain the level of integrity it once
Under SYG, feeling threatened is enough to use force.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Trayvon did not have to wait for an attack.
That is why SYG is a disaster. It covers both Zimmerman and Trayvon.
It covers both as far as we know, but we really don't know a whole bunch. I always use the OJ case as an example on how the press/politics can even convoluteQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
the principles of Science. This one has just gotten started and it will be a long, horrible ride for many. This case was screwed the moment they decided to bypass the Grand Jury.
What they should have done is used the grand Jury as a investigative body/fact finder as well as a vehicle for charging.
I cannot go so far as to say that SYG is a disaster. Everyone has a right to self defense, and should not be required to retreat when confronted. What we need in this case is a media that will actually do their job, rather than push a view point, let the legal system work. We need to find out the facts as to whether or not SYG actually covers Zimmerman. The "feeling" has to be justified in order to take advantage of SYG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Additionally, feeling threatened is what is required in all cases of self defense. If you don't feel threatened then there is no self defense.
The part of the Florida law which I center on is this:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."
I agree with mhailey,
We have laws for a reason, however they are not perfect. There is always scenarios and different situations that affect things. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. If there were constant cases of people going around just shooting people and then claiming "stand your ground", I could see a changing something, but this isn't the case. Also agree with the "felling threatened". At what point do you do something? After you have aready been beaten, raped, robbed, maimed, injured, or killed? Where is the magic line that has to be crossed? I believe there are plenty of "victims" out there that felt threatened before they became victims but didn't do anything about it.
No, this is all covered. If someone is running away with your property and if you think that the only way you can recover your property is to shoot, you can shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
If you accidentally shoot someone else, you're in trouble. If the guys shoots back and hits someone else, it's his problem.
I like these laws.
SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?
Can you please provide a citation to the law that allows a person to shoot another person in the back, as they are running away, over a piece of property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Edit: I found it: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html and http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html. However it is not so clear cut, and I fear that you will be facing murder charges because property can be recovered by other means than shooting a person in the back as they run away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
:rofl2: That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another.. :p
Very slight difference there but it is a difference..
Now working off of that premise, let's say I came out of my appartment at the time Trayvon, was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, do you think I legally could have shot him ???? Not knowing any of the preceding circumstances :hmmm:
Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
Hmm, more pics are released.
George Zimmerman: Charged and Jailed | Photos - ABC News
That may be true in New Mexico, it isn't true here. The first CCW shooter was charged with murder in Dallas. The Grand Jury threw it out. Grand Juries are much closer to the will of the people in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
There was also a vigilante killing in Irving. A man shot his girlfriend in the parking lot of Irving Mall in front of witnesses. He killed her. This was before CCW was legal. Another man pulled out a revolver with a scope and took the killer out. Both shootings were witnessed by a city council woman.
He was no-billed and hailed as a hero.
The police are less forgiving if this is done in daylight.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
At night shooting someone fleeing from your house is much more accepted.
We have had drunks banging on someone's door at night being shot through a door, no billed. You don't screw around another person's house at night. People are paranoid and it's accepted.
It's also legal to open carry on your own property.
At $4.04 at gallon down the street; I will wait till he puts the can down first.:hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
Don't want to take a chance of hitting the can & losing the gas. :shrug:
If he pointed a gun at me while he was taking the gas, damn right I would shoot him. He threatened me with lethal force and soon could do the same to someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
That's the justification used at the Mall shooting and it held up in court.
Yes. In that case you would be on the attack. ATTACK: to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
I agree it is semantics.
I've not experienced this at all with a Grand Jury. I have spent hundreds of hours presenting testimony and evidence before a Grand Jury. I'd like to know where you have had this experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Not him or her shoot the can!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
I think this is going to get more and more interesting as the facts come out,,,
We need to keep this thread going through the process and see if our perception changes as we learn what is presented...
Watched GMA this morning and their bias in this case was so transparent it was laughable... :(