Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

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...

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...

Originally Posted by Crotalus

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.

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.

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?

It can be a slippery slope. Bad laws all of them.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

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.

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.)

Originally Posted by gssixgun

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...

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...

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.

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

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Not exactly, that easy, there is no legal justification to "Attack" he can only "Defend" himself,

Under SYG, feeling threatened is enough to use force.
Trayvon did not have to wait for an attack.
That is why SYG is a disaster. It covers both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Under SYG, feeling threatened is enough to use force.
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 convolute
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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Under SYG, feeling threatened is enough to use force.
Trayvon did not have to wait for an attack.
That is why SYG is a disaster. It covers both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

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?

It can be a slippery slope. Bad laws all of them.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

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.

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.

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?

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.