Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) He was following him in his car first, the kid then got away, then Zimmerman got out of his car and managed to find him again. This is agreed to by both sides. The kid has a guy suspiciously following him in his car, he thinks he loses him, then the guy finds him again and approaches him after getting out of his car. That's as good of a self defense case as any other you can make. Strike back kid, he's after you, either he's going to kidnap you or he's going to mug you. Oh please, that it is a stretch.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) Jenks, Im still not sure why as a society we want random people intervening in random events. For example: Right and what if someone thinks YOU are the strange man, and see YOU with your kid and your kid is screaming because they dont want to leave the park. And they confront you, you tell them to mind their own business, continue to take your kid away and they shoot you because they believe you were kidnapping the child. I dont believe citizens should take the law into their own hands, unless they absolutely know what is going on. IE If you know the kid and you know who is parent is, then you can intervene. But if they are random people, how the hell do you know what is going on. Youre not going to convince me that people should be allowed to be armed and get in conflicts that they have no idea about, that is just not going to end well. They couldn't just shoot me for taking a kid. That's not putting their lives at risk as all of these laws talk about.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) He was following him on foot. The current law may or may not cover Zimmerman's actions based on what we know. Based on what we know, I think the laws should be written such that they would. See this is my problem. There's been this crazy outrage before the facts are even clear. You said chase, which would lead people to think that he was literally running him down, which would make the Martin-self defense claim much more believable. But if he's just walking? If he's just seeing if the guy is going to cause trouble? Yeah, it might be racist to see a black kid and assume he's up to no good, but there's no law against that. So because he was curious about what the kid was up to, and a confrontation ensued (cause unknown) he loses any right to claim his actions were in self defense? I still think the guy should have been arrested and the investigation should have been more thorough. And there's enough circumstantial evidence (being reported anyway) that would lead me to believe the whole stand your ground exception doesn't apply here. I just don't get this outrage over a law that's not really that poorly written and that in 99% of other cases provided a more clear and concise method for determining if someone's self-defense killing was justifiable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Martin was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious. No, I don't feel you should have a presumed self defense claim in that case. Much as if you start a bar fight, start getting your ass kicked to the point that you reasonably fear death, you don't get a self-defense claim. FYI this exact scenario happened to a friend of a friend in Chicago and he was convicted of 2nd degree murder I believe. And there's a law already on that, and it's the aggressor exception to all of this. And did he "chase" him? Or did he follow him?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) I was talking about Zimmerman's actions and confronting Martin (who there was no reasonable suspicion of) and you brought in this argument about guys stalking around playgrounds. They are not the same thing. And furthermore, no, I still don't think you should approach strangers who aren't committing any crimes with a loaded weapon. Notice that adding the qualifier "if need be" completely changes the scenario from what I was commenting on. But who I consider to be a creep might just be some random middle aged guy. I could be stereotyping wrongly too. I don't think being a racist or a bigot suddenly makes you less deserving of protection.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) The right move, of course, is to either step between the adult and the child he's talking to (who presumably you actually would know otherwise you're just a stranger as well), or to call the police and allow them to handle the situation. And what happens if he's some crazy guy that goes off and tries to kill you, when all you were doing was trying to get him away from a kid? According to SS since you confronted him instead of running away, you don't have immunity, so you need to make the conscious choice of (1) being beaten/killed or (2) shooting him with the looming possibility of going to jail for murder.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) If someone performs the actions Zimmerman did and it leads to them shooting someone to death, they shouldn't be given legal immunity. So tailing someone that you think is suspicious, justifiably or not, that results in a confrontation that might not have been expected, should end with me having no right to defend myself, with deadly force, if I feel it reasonably necessary to prevent my own demise? That seems absolutely ludicrous.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Well, you've already changed the scenario to turn it into creepy-dude-around-children, which isn't fair. But no, you shouldn't exit your vehicle with a loaded firearm and confront the individual unless you see a crime being committed and are trained to handle such situations. How is that not fair? You don't think that happens? Well, I disagree with the second part. No one has the obligation to do that, but if my kids are playing in a park I would hope that other parents would keep an eye on strange people and follow them if need be and confront them if need be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) The deceased in this case was 150 lbs and 6'3". The shooter was reportedly over 200 lbs. And anyway, if Martin was shot on top of Zimmerman, that would have been easily determined by Zimmerman being covered in blood from having a body land on top of him after being shot. But that's beside the point. What the law ought to require is that you attempt to retreat or get out of a conflict if at all humanly possible. If it doesn't say that, then self-defense applies equally to both sides. Martin has every right to try to tackle and knock down a guy following him if he feels threatened because he also has no duty to retreat. If the kid were 1 year older he could have legally been carrying a gun and this could have been decided by who had the faster trigger finger, with the other one walking away scot-free. Martin responds physically to the guy following him (self-defense), Zimmerman attempts to respond physically or attempts to pull his weapon (self-defense), Martin pulls his weapon (self-defense) and now we have legalized the wild west. That is fully unacceptable and it takes no exaggeration to reach that point...that is what we actually know. You're ignoring my point. I'm assuming he had the duty to retreat. But the same issues you bring up - about proving that he in fact tried to retreat - still ends up being a he said - he said between one person that's alive and another that's dead. You clearly have an issue with (1) guns being allowed and (2) people's right to fight back. That's fine. But don't make this situation out to be a prime example of why stand your ground laws are terribly confusing as written.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) I wish the law was clear that someone how performed the actions Zimmerman did was guilty of at least manslaughter for initiating the confrontation even if he may not have initiated physical contact. So people never get into situations they might regret later? That should be held against them if a verbal spat turns into a life-threatening situation? They shouldn't be able to protect themselves?

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Let's just ignore the fact Zimmerman got out of his car on his own, he wasn't pulled out or has he tried to claim that? Zimmerman initiated a confrontation and he got one, if you are being stalked by some nut who isn't a cop, you aren't going to defend yourself when cornered? The kid DID NOTHING WRONG but be a black kid with a hoodie. This case is a simple case of cold blooded murder complicated by a stupid vauge law. we don't know if he didn't do anything wrong. all we know is that he tailed the guy and they ended up in a fight. that's the point. the moment when stand your ground applies or his duty to retreat arises is at a point where only he knows and the dead kid can't argue about it. So to say the law is stupid because the facts don't conveniently fit is dumb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) Sure we do. Zimmerman followed him around the neighborhood and chased him on foot. He doesn't do that, no one is dead. So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) In that case, he at least has to make the effort to retreat and be able to establish that he did so. If he can't do that and he still takes the shot, then all of the other things which led up to him taking the shot suddenly are admissible in terms of defining whether Martin was also attempting to defend himself, when under the current law, they are not, because they aren't relevant to whether or not he could have reasonably felt threatened at the moment he took the shot. Retreat? How can he retreat if he's got someone on top of him beating the crap out of him? Given the facts of this case the requirement to retreat poses the exact same problems as the stand your ground law does. No one knows when the fight started or how it started. Zimmerman's story can be the exact same with the added caveat that he wasn't able to retreat because Martin jumped him and started wailing on him. He was lucky to have his concealed carry weapon on him and shoot him as he was on top of him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) Right back to where it was beforehand, requirement to withdraw. So we can fight over more ambiguous language like "when it's safe to do so?" Let's apply that here. Zimmerman was just tailing the guy because he thought he looked suspicious. Nothing wrong with that. Next thing he knows, Martin's on top of him beating him up. He shot. Was it reasonably safe for him to leave (and when exactly would that duty start here?) Would the duty to retreat even apply? BLOW IT UP! GET RID OF IT! TERRIBLE LAW!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) By the way it is absolutely appropriate to second-guess, that is the point of the "reasonable" legal standard. I guess I missed the part where people are offering tweaks they'd make to the law instead of just getting rid of it altogether.

Why? I'm saying you guys are being unreasonable. One case makes it difficult to apply the law (according to you guys, I don't agree with that at all) and the entire premise behind giving people the authority to protect themselves in life or death situations should be thrown out the window. Step back from the ledge and realize this was one, unfortunate situation. Not every s***ty situation deserves a world-changing mob.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) How can they possibly respond when they have an injured shooter, a shooter who says that the kid he was chasing initiated the conflict by throwing the first punch and jumping on him, supposed witness confirmation of a struggle, and a law that says that they can only make an arrest in the event it is crystal clear that the shooting was unjustified? The additional statements that were "leaked" last night only make it more clear that the police have zero options here. Come on, they failed to do much of any investigation until after the fact. The county prosecutor had to recuse himself because he f***ed up so bad and the state prosecutors had to pick up the file to save face. As Soxbadger said, arrest the guy at a minimum. Charge him if there's something there and if he gets off after a trial, then so be it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) Why do you think this incident resonates so much with the African american community? It's because this is a community that is already sick of being looked upon as guilty for whatever happened. And yes, it's a factual "scenario" which actually occurred and left a kid in the ground. Nice way to minimize the fact that a kid is dead. More faux outrage, "you're not taking this seriously enough!" I live in a city where a kid is shot dead every day practically. Spare me the "won't someone think of the children" campaign.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) 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. They have this already ("aggressor"). I cited to the applicable law a long time ago. And i'm speaking more generally about the fact that people think this law is dumb because of an incredibly unique factual situation. Go back to the beginning of this thread - i'm in agreement with you. The police and county attorneys royally f***ed up here. Doesn't mean we should go crazy in response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Funny, because the unarmed kid here is dead and the guy who started following him is not. Somewhere along the line, the unarmed kid definitely needed another layer of protection. I've argued this law doesn't apply in this situation. I'm not falling for the medias faux outrage because a "white" person killed an innocent, law-abiding, Christ-loving black kid. "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! GET RID OF THE LAW, THERE'S A FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT DOESN'T FIT IT PERFECTLY! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,3175723.story If this kid had died I wonder what people here would say about it.

Think Bruce would take his job back?

I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me. Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) Yup, I just found it again, it was while he was doing his 20 questions feed with followers. 47 minutes ago, so like 12:40 ish. ah, ok. i wasn't going back far enough.

i dont see that seth davis tweet on his feed. you sure that's a real one? And why the hell would the BoT nix this? Oh I know, because Groce isn't black.