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

Originally Posted by Crotalus

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.

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.

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 Mvcrash

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.

That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another..

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

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 Mvcrash

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.

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.

Hmm, more pics are released.
George Zimmerman: Charged and Jailed | Photos - ABC News

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

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.

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.

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.

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."