Soxbadger

In order for someone to be a criminal, they have to be doing a criminal activity. Unless its obvious that it is criminal, you shouldnt get any more rights, especially if the other person is innocent, as in this case. If Zimmerman is not charged, the Florida law seemingly goes beyond protecting yourself, as when Martin was first witnessed he was doing nothing to threaten Zimmerman. That is the problem, when does the law start. Do you look at the totality of the circumstances, or do you look just at the last instance. If I follow you with a gun for a mile and threaten to kill you, and when you turn around I run away, do you get to shoot me? If you follow me with a gun and threaten to kill me, and I attack you to disarm you, can you shoot me? These are the problems with such a law. Now maybe a simple fix is to add an "instigator" exception, that basically states if you instigated the situation that creates the necessity to use violence, you can not raise self-defense. I think that is my biggest issue, the fact that you seemingly can start a fight, kill someone and legitimately claim self defense under the Florida law. That just does not jive with most legal precedent regarding self defense.

Or you just change the insurance policies, ie you have a $10k deductible for anything in the first month of treatment.

Illinois is a mess. I was going to joke that the only reason I can see this not going through is that someone realized Groce wasnt black, which is seemingly a requirement for this job.

I think this is a terrible law. Even police dont have the authority to shoot someone for a "potential" crime. If Martin was stealing a car, or breaking into a house, or attacking a kid, or doing anything criminal, then there is an argument that maybe a bystander should be able to intervene. But as it turns out, Martin had every right to be where he was. He wasnt even trespassing. If you let people walk around, thinking that they are cops and that they can handle these type of situations, these are the results (imo). It would have been just as bad if Martin had gotten the gun from Zimmerman and shot Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had missed Martin and killed an innocent bystander. There are consequences for these type of laws.

That is the only reason I can think that Jerrance would leave, feeling slighted that they picked Groce over him. I still think Collins is better than Groce, but well never know.

This thread really blew up. When you read the comments its simply that some people dont believe Zimmerman should have followed him, while others are willing to give more leniency to that act. I believe that he shouldnt have followed him. That is not to say there is no situation where someone should be followed, but it is to say if you do not witness any criminal activity (walking through a neighborhood is not criminal), you should not be stalking someone. Furthermore, there is a definite question of whether Zimmerman committed other crimes pursuant to Florida statute (stalking and/or assault). My biggest complaint is that given all of these potential crimes, the police charged him with 0. In my experience with police, they charge as much as possible, and then let the facts play out. So I ask, why did the police charge him with nothing, not even assault, not even stalking. His own admission was that he was following Martin, that could be construed as stalking or assault. Either way, I dont care about the race of these individuals. I care about destroying these laws, so sometimes the ends justify the means.

Alcatraz:

Y2hh, Could have been clearer, I hate this Florida law. I dont hate all laws, and most of my hate is because they are written so badly.

y2hh, Of course, and that is why a dead victim is a double edged sword. If Im the prosecutor Zimmerman is a wannabe cop who has his gun proudly holstered for all to see (and if the facts dont support that) or he was brandishing a gun in the open, trying to imitate the police he watches on tv shows. If Im Zimmerman's lawyer, obviously I argue Martin had no idea he had a gun, and if it wasnt for Zimmerman's quick reaction getting his gun, Martin could have killed him. Who knows what will happen. I just hate the law, so Im just hoping that this causes people to realize that untrained citizens should not be walking around with guns trying to play police.

Y2hh, There is absolutely evidence who the initial aggressor is. Zimmerman called 911 and said that he was following Martin, following someone while armed, would be considered an aggressive act to most reasonable people. If someone is following you with a loaded weapon, do you feel they are being aggressive? My answer is yes.

It really doesnt matter, Martin is also protected by stand your ground law (or self defense). If an armed individual is following me, and I believe my life is being threatened, dont I, under Florida law, have the right to try and disarm the person following me? The problem for Zimmerman still is escalation of force. It is reasonable to hit someone who has a gun to protect yourself, is it reasonable to shoot someone who is unarmed? Most people knew these facts to start, it really changes nothing.

The police report, based on the testimony of Zimmerman, supports Zimmerman's story. It may be true, it may not be, but the police report is hearsay evidence that isnt admissible at trial. Furthermore there is this troubling piece of evidence: http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watc...ory?id=15907136 Attacking the victim isnt going to work at this point, that train has already left the station. No one is going to change their mind based on murky facts, lines have been drawn already.

Y2hh, I agree more can be done. I just think the problem is that the "more" gets politicized so that eventually "nothing" gets done.

Y2hh, But everyone is in agreement that criminals should be caught, so once again, who are you going to be outraged against? Is it outrage against the Police because they dont catch criminals? Is it outrage against taxes because they should be raised so that we can have a police officer on every corner? Is it outrage against drug laws because police are busy arresting non-violent offenders instead of spending more time catching murderers? What is the outrage about?

No Im saying that when most shootings occur in Chicago, they dont know who the shooter is, and that is why there isnt a lot of national outrage about the fact that there havent been any charges pressed. What national attention should it get? That crimes are going unsolved? That isnt something that you can just wave a wand and fix. This case there is something that outrage can actually do (whether you agree or not) and that is pressure the police to charge Zimmerman. In most cases its not that they dont want to charge someone, its that they literally have no idea who is the criminal. So you can walk on the street all night long, but what will that change? The police are already trying to catch the guy, that is the difference. In this case, the police had the guy in custody and let him walk. Many people believe that the police didnt even properly investigate. That is where the outrage comes from.

y2hh, No it doesnt happen on a daily basis. If someone in Chicago was carrying a weapon on the street, shot someone and confessed, they would be charged with a crime. Gun laws dont stop crimes, laws dont stop crimes, that has been proven since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time. But I doubt that many people would argue that there should be no laws, thus we create laws, not to stop crime, but instead to deter crime. If you live in Chicago, there is a great deterrent to walking around with a gun (you may go to jail simply for having one like Plaxico), if you live in Florida there is no deterrent for walking around with a gun. Whether or not you believe that people should be deterred from owning guns is up to you.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) It's too bad we don't treat all murders of possible innocents like this...because as I know it, bunches of innocent kids and people were gunned down in Chicago the last few weeks...and nobody gives a flying f***. In how many of those cases did the shooter confess? Because Id expect there to be outrage if a shooter confessed to shooting a kid and there were no charges brought...

y2hh, Dont even get me started on juries. Its just a really stupid practice, at minimum you should get paid by your employer for the day. Balta, I guess the Machiavellian inside of me believes that the ends justified the means.

Juries are sheep, sorry if the truth isnt good, but the reality is that most people in the world are sheep.

Ill never be on an Illinois jury either. No prosecutor would ever take that risk.

y2hh, As long as you consistently believe I have no problem with that, Im the biggest advocate of that on this board. But I really dont recall you in the PSU threads defending Paterno...

Y2HH, You have to realize that Im not a Florida citizen, I wont be on the jury and I will never have to apply such a stupid law at a trial. That being said, I am using what I personally believe should be the law, and in my personal opinion based on the current facts, I believe Zimmerman should have been charged with a crime. That is the important aspect that is lost here. The outrage isnt about whether he is innocent or guilty, its about the fact that he hasnt even been charged with a crime, it never went to a DA (a lawyer) to actually make the decision on whether there were enough facts to prosecute or not. The ironic part, is that I generally am one of, if not the strongest, advocates for Defendants on this board. If you look through other threads, 9 out of 10, I am the one saying that you should not convict etc, until all of the facts are available. But there is a huge difference between conviction and pressing charges. And I think its pretty disingenuous to call people sheep just because they may disagree with your point of view. Yep both are bad laws, Ive said this multiple times in the thread.

The evidence may be in his favor, but the public perception is not. Ill take perception over evidence at any trial.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida. I disagree with this entirely. The Florida statute simply says that the Police have to have probable cause that the person didnt act in self defense. If it is shown that Martin was shot while he was on the ground and unarmed, that would be pretty compelling evidence that it wasnt in self defense. If it is shown that Zimmerman created the situation or provoked the situation, its not self defense. You dont need someone to see it, you just need "probable cause" to bring the charges.

And Id love to cross the Defendant who said they didnt call 911, that is going to be a fun one in argument.