HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Under "Stand Your Ground"...

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:22 PM

Under "Stand Your Ground" Trayvon Had The Right To Kill Zimmerman


Here are the instructions to the Zimmerman jury from http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf I've changed a few words so this applies to Trayvon Martin...


Quote:
In deciding whether Trayvon Martin was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing Trayvon Martin need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, Trayvon Martin must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony

The "logic" of Stand Your Ground can apply to BOTH Z and TM... but only the survivor can use it as a defense against murder or manslaughter in court.

And here's why Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman... and I think it's something the jury missed. In a police interview Z admits he never identified himself to Martin.. and he reached in his pocket claiming he was going for his "phone". Start video below at 38 minutes. Trayvon WAS not engaged in a crime. He DID have the right to be at the location. He DID have the right to ask his stalker WTF was he doing. And when Zimmerman reached for his "phone" (sic) Trayvon had every reason to believe his life was in danger.

Again... the jury instructions in reverse... "The danger facing Trayvon Martin need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. "





88 replies, 4951 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Under "Stand Your Ground" Trayvon Had The Right To Kill Zimmerman (Original post)
eniwetok Dec 2016 OP
world wide wally Dec 2016 #1
hack89 Dec 2016 #6
spanone Dec 2016 #11
hack89 Dec 2016 #13
eniwetok Dec 2016 #56
hack89 Dec 2016 #59
eniwetok Dec 2016 #62
hack89 Dec 2016 #66
eniwetok Dec 2016 #67
TlalocW Dec 2016 #23
Hoyt Dec 2016 #2
eniwetok Dec 2016 #4
Hoyt Dec 2016 #7
eniwetok Dec 2016 #14
Hoyt Dec 2016 #20
mercuryblues Dec 2016 #78
Bettie Dec 2016 #22
NobodyHere Dec 2016 #35
eniwetok Dec 2016 #48
hack89 Dec 2016 #43
eniwetok Dec 2016 #49
hack89 Dec 2016 #51
eniwetok Dec 2016 #52
hack89 Dec 2016 #55
eniwetok Dec 2016 #61
hack89 Dec 2016 #64
eniwetok Dec 2016 #58
hack89 Dec 2016 #60
eniwetok Dec 2016 #68
hack89 Dec 2016 #72
eniwetok Dec 2016 #76
spin Dec 2016 #79
eniwetok Dec 2016 #85
spin Dec 2016 #88
Captain Stern Dec 2016 #54
Drumron Dec 2016 #25
Hoyt Dec 2016 #28
doc03 Dec 2016 #41
lpbk2713 Dec 2016 #42
doc03 Dec 2016 #45
Aristus Dec 2016 #50
mythology Dec 2016 #46
hack89 Dec 2016 #5
Hoyt Dec 2016 #8
hack89 Dec 2016 #10
Runningdawg Dec 2016 #26
hack89 Dec 2016 #27
eniwetok Dec 2016 #47
Hoyt Dec 2016 #30
hack89 Dec 2016 #31
Hoyt Dec 2016 #32
hack89 Dec 2016 #33
eniwetok Dec 2016 #53
hack89 Dec 2016 #57
eniwetok Dec 2016 #69
hack89 Dec 2016 #73
eniwetok Dec 2016 #77
hack89 Dec 2016 #81
eniwetok Dec 2016 #86
hack89 Dec 2016 #87
csziggy Dec 2016 #15
hack89 Dec 2016 #17
csziggy Dec 2016 #19
hack89 Dec 2016 #21
csziggy Dec 2016 #36
hack89 Dec 2016 #38
csziggy Dec 2016 #44
eniwetok Dec 2016 #16
hack89 Dec 2016 #18
Oneironaut Dec 2016 #65
flamin lib Dec 2016 #3
Hoyt Dec 2016 #9
tblue37 Dec 2016 #12
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #24
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #29
eniwetok Dec 2016 #71
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #74
Skittles Dec 2016 #34
lpbk2713 Dec 2016 #37
Greybnk48 Dec 2016 #39
doc03 Dec 2016 #40
Oneironaut Dec 2016 #63
eniwetok Dec 2016 #70
Oneironaut Dec 2016 #75
bullimiami Dec 2016 #80
ManiacJoe Dec 2016 #83
backscatter712 Dec 2016 #82
uponit7771 Dec 2016 #84

Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:32 PM

1. I always thought that stupid law would have been on Trayvon's side if there was any justice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:49 PM

6. With no eye witnesses

And the government's witnesses confirming Zimmerman's story, you just knew that trial would not have a happy ending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:58 PM

11. last man standing 'wins'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:01 PM

13. Trials are skewed towards the accused for obvious reasons

The government had a very weak case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:50 AM

56. Was it a "very weak" case or or a case of bad written law?

I think it was the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:54 AM

59. When the government witnesses undermine the government's case

on the witness stand then I would call it a weak case. Z didn't even have to testify- their was no strong evidence against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:05 AM

62. sure there was evidence... Z's OWN STATEMENTS

and I'll blame the police for not asking the right questions. They SHOULD have asked why Z didn't ID himself or try to defuse the situation. They SHOULD have asked him why he made a threatening move Martin might reasonably consider a threat to his safety. When Z refused to testify, the real heart of the confrontation was unexplored and all that was left were those poorly conducted police interviews and the "eye witness" who did not see how the fight started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:20 AM

66. You just described a weak and poorly prosecuted case

Z had no obligation to help the government convict him.

I think Z could have been convicted on a lesser charge. I also suspect that he would have please bargained if given the chance. The prosecutor rolled the dice on a murder charge and lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:30 PM

67. this is a side show....

Whether the prosecution had a weak case or not... under the judge's instructions to the jury which included SYG... the jury was not allowed to decide whether Z was the aggressor. SYG short circuits any investigation into whether Z was really responsible and instead looks only at how Z felt at the moment. This might have been the same under a charge of manslaughter.

So are you going to share with us you real purpose in arguing these points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:29 PM

23. I don't believe that

If TM had been the last man standing, you know everything and anything would have been done to make sure he still went to jail - Stand Your Ground law or not.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:33 PM

2. Even if one believes Zimmerman, he still grabbed his gun, stalked and intimidated Martin, then shot

him center mass as he had been trained to do. Assuming Martin actually attacked Zman and beat him within an inch of his life -- which those little superficial scratches on Zman's head don't prove -- Martin still had a right to defend himself against the armed stalker and intimidator. Zman clearly instigated the tragedy, as gunners often do, then told the police what his NRA trainers had crammed into his head during concealed carry courses -- "I was afraid for my life when the skinny, unarmed Black kid turned on me after I backed him into a corner with my gun. If Martin had remained subservient and begged Zman for mercy, Martin might still be alive."

One of the biggest miscarriages of justice, but supported by most gun fanciers because they can see themselves in the same situation having shot an innocent, unarmed person for no reason other than they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:42 PM

4. conversely

Conversely, if Z just identified himself and didn't make any threatening moves they'd both be alive.

As I suggested, the "logic" of Stand Your Ground can apply to BOTH Z and TM... but the justice system is short circuited because only the survivor can use STY as a legal defense against murder or manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:50 PM

7. I don't think the concept of stand your ground should have applied to Zman. One shouldn't be able

to create a situation, then claim you were afraid for your life. To me that's entrapment or luring one into a situation.

Notwithstanding those who deny it, Zman is your typical gun fancier -- a racist and bully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:14 PM

14. SYG is a legal defense for gun owners... so once Z was charged...

SYG automatically became his best and only defense.

But despite SYG, he was charged. So did the prosecution fuck up or is SYG too generous a protection for reckless gun nuts like Z?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:44 PM

20. SYG is too generous in a situation where a bully can grab his gun and intimidate an unarmed kid,

then claim they were scared for their life. Fact is, Zman had been training to beat people up and carried a gun in case that wasn't working for him. A bully, intimidator should not be able to claim SYG when they started things to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:25 PM

78. That is

what I say. You don't get to attack someone and when they defend themselves, shoot them and get to claim self defense. Martin tried to hide and get away from Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:19 PM

22. SYG is basically license to kill

as long as A. you kill the other guy so there is no one to contradict your story and B. you say the magic words "I was scared".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:00 PM

35. Z's defense didn't use SYG

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:44 PM

48. it didn't matter... it was still the law

Read the judge's instructions to the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:18 PM

43. Except he did not evoke a SYG defense

do you even understand how the law works in Florida? If he evoked SYG there would have been a separate SYG hearing before the trial. If SYG is upheld then no trial. If SYG denied then a trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:52 PM

49. the instructions given to the jury were consistant with SYG



776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:25 PM

51. His entire defense was that it was impossible for him to retreat

Because Trayvon was on top of him. It was a traditional self defense case where SYG did not come into play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:38 AM

52. but this becomes a catch 22

Under FL state law Trayvon had the right to defend himself, and use force first if he had a reasonable reason to believe Z meant him harm or he feared for his life. And he certainly did have more than a reasonable reason which Z did nothing to defuse. Z knew about SYG and he had to know he was escalating the situation. Martin didn't sucker punch him out of the blue.

When Z reached for his "phone" instead of identifying himself, Martin... who was not engaged in any crime, and had a right to be where he was... then had the right under FL law to use deadly force. But since Martin is dead... this benefit of the doubt is granted to Z who was the party to blame.

This is the sort of insanity that can result from poorly written, NRA inspired, SYG laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:49 AM

55. Z got the benefit of the doubt because that is how justice works

In America trials are skewed towards the accused for obvious reasons. The government has to prove their case. With one participant dead, no witnesses to the actual shooting, and other government witnesses collaborating Z's story, the government had an extremely weak case that they most likely only brought to trial for political reasons - the fact they used a rarely used procedure to avoid taking the case to a grand jury tells you how weak their case was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:59 AM

61. no one's ever been convicted in the death of another where there are no witnesses?

Are you suggesting that no one's ever been convicted in the death of another where there are no witnesses?

With this poorly written law... the question of whether Martin had the first right of self defense is moot... and Z, the aggressor, is granted that benefit of the doubt. That being said, if this was a weak case it's because they went for 2ed degree murder instead of manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:16 AM

64. No. But usually the prosecutor doesn't help the accused. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:53 AM

58. you're moving the goal post...

You started by saying Z didn't use a SYG defense. And yet it's still part of FL law... and it was incorporated into the judge's instructions to the Jury. You then dropped this issue and moved to something else.

So did SYG play a role in this trial or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:57 AM

60. There was no SYG hearing, was there?

He used a self defense argument that did not involve him standing his ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

68. IT DOESN'T MATTER if SYG is part of the law...

Please show me where SYG is NOT in the judge's instructions to the jury. If it's there then it doesn't really matter if Z formally used it in his defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:59 PM

72. So why didn't he ask for a hearing?

He could have skipped the trial altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:11 PM

76. ask his lawyer

Are you DENYING that the judge's instructions to the jury include SYG? If it does then it doesn't matter why Z chose not to formally use it as a defense. That was between him and his lawyer.

What's your position here? Or do I have to guess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:57 PM

79. IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman how could Zimmerman retreat? ...

This case was interesting in many ways.

I have a concealed weapons permit and carry. However I am not and have never been a involved in a neighborhood watch organization.

If I were to see someone acting in a what I felt was a suspicious manner I might report him to the police. Once that was done I would go on my way as confronting suspicious people is above my pay grade.

If I put myself in Martin's shoes I can understand that he may have felt threatened by Zimmerman. If I had been Martin and Zimmerman approached me in an aggressive manner and showed he was armed I might have felt my life was in danger and made an attempt to disarm him. That would qualify as standing my ground.

If you take classes in martial arts you often are taught techniques for disarming a person with a knife or gun. A good instructor will point out that you should only try such tactics when you are ABSOLUTELY certain your attacker plans to use his weapon to injure or kill you. If you are sure that you have little to lose you might as well try to take your attackers weapon away.

The way I see it is that if Zimmerman would have called the police and went on his way everything would have turned out well. Of course it is quite possible that Martin overreacted when Zimmerman approached him and had he just remained calm he would be alive today.

Sometimes younger men have too much testosterone for their own good. It is also wise to never go looking for trouble as if you do it just might find you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:44 PM

85. Who had the testosterone poisoning?

Martin or Z... knowing he had his gun? Martin DID have the right to be where he was. He was not committing a crime. He had the right to ask Z why he was following him. Z could have defused the situation by saying he was an unofficial neighborhood watch. If I remember from watching these videos a few years back he contradicts himself, at one point saying he showed his hands to prove he wasn't a threat, then at another time saying he reached into his pocket for his "phone"... like he was going to call 911 when Martin right in front of him... to tell 911 what? The kid I think is a criminal and on drugs in standing right in front of me?

Z had plenty of chances to back off... but he wanted to be the hero... nailing someone he thought was criminal on the prowl. Martin paid the price and Z got off because of SYG when SYG, if properly applied to Martin, should have nailed Z as the aggressor deserving no protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:16 PM

88. I think if Martin would have lived ...

his testimony would have convicted Zimmerman. Since he didn't there was enough reasonable doubt that the jury did find Zimmerman guilty.

That's the way our system is designed to work.

Blackstone's formulation

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

*****snip****

Authoritarian personalities tend to take the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape."[1] Pol Pot[15] made similar remarks. Wolfgang Schäuble[16] referenced this principle while saying that it is not applicable to the context of preventing terrorist attacks. Former American Vice President Dick Cheney said that his support of American use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) against suspected terrorists was unchanged by the fact that 25% of CIA detainees subject to that treatment were later proven to be innocent, including one who died of hypothermia in CIA custody. "I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent." Asked whether the 25% margin was too high, Cheney responded, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. . . . I'd do it again in a minute."[17]

Liberal columnist Ezra Klein supported California's SB 967 "Affirmative Consent" law with the same reasoning as Cheney's supported "enhanced interrogation techniques". While claiming the law was "terrible" and could be used to punish people who did not commit rape, Klein states "its overreach is precisely its value" and "ugly problems don't always have pretty solutions." [18]

Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:47 AM

54. Zimmerman actually didn't use the SYG defense.

He waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing. He used 'self-defense' as a defense.

That said, I agree that if Martin had lived, he could have used SYG for striking Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman's own words, when Martin confronted him, he didn't identify himself, or admit that he was following Martin. At that point, all Martin knows it there's a strange guy following him in the dark, who just denied that he was following him. And then, the strange guy reaches into his pocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:34 PM

25. Wrong

 

Not all gun "fanciers" as you put it are racist and or bully's.... stop lumping all people that have guns into one category because your so anti gun...... would you like it if I said all anti gun people are giant dildo's that live in mommy basement......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drumron (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:55 PM

28. You should have posted your opinion of gunners like Zman. Sorry, but the majority of gun owners,

especially those who have lots of guns and the 5% or so who carry in public, are racists. That is why they carry. The NRA is a racist organization, mostly white people who have no problem voting for Board Members like Teddy Nugent. Go to any gun store or gun show, tell me what you see.

Believe me, white wing racist gun owners have called me a lot worse than a "dildo."






















A lot of racism and not much diversity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:13 PM

41. Look at all those black thugs in that gun show. I can't find one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:16 PM

42. And in that last pic ...




I see at least three guys wearing hoodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:33 PM

45. Myself a white guy 68 years old was at a gun shop in Columbus last week. I was looking at

cartridge boxes comparing ballistics of different caliber handguns. I suppose I was there maybe 15 minutes and nobody bothered
me. This young black guy came over and looked at a couple boxes of shells he was probably there 3 or 4 minutes. In that period of time
three of the store employees came over to check him out and asked him if he needed help. He did pick up a box of shells and paid for them when he left. I don't think for a minute all those people were that interested in helping him. I notice stuff like that all the time, that has to really bother a person when every time you walk in a store people assume you are there to shop lift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drumron (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:56 PM

50. You don't use apostrophes with plurals.

Someone needs to put down the guns and pick up a book...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:00 PM

46. Hell, if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck like the emergency operator said

 

Martin would still be alive. If Zimmerman didn't need to feel like a hero, Martin would still be alive.

These stand your ground laws are really poorly written. If you pursue somebody, you aren't "standing your ground". The aggressor in a situation bears the responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:47 PM

5. I thought the evidence showed that Trayvon was not aware of the gun

Must have missed that testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:53 PM

8. Now, how would we know that? Do you honestly think Zman -- an armed wuss -- followed Martin in dark

without his hand on his gun. Or, do you just automatically take the gunners' story as truth, since his prey was obviously shot center mass. Besides, I seem to remember your boy -- Zman -- claimed Martin went for his gun when Martin was supposedly "bashing his head in the concrete" while remaining conscious and with superficial scratches as proof Martin almost killed him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:57 PM

10. He said it was in his pocket the entire time

Remember the government's key witness that testified he saw Trayvon on top of Z? He didn't see a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:39 PM

26. I'm still trying to figure out

how you get a gun out of your pocket when another man is (supposedly) on top of you pinning your arms to the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Runningdawg (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:49 PM

27. Not sure that was what was said in court

In any case, his wounds were consisted with a point blank shot in an upwards direction which would be consistent with what the eye witness saw about the fight prior to the shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Runningdawg (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:43 PM

47. Z claims gun was in holster under jacket

It's 38 min into the video in the OP. I don't find that credible. I do believe he had the gun in his pocket. He's not at some concert hall. This chicken shit's not about to follow a kid he thinks is on drugs, a possible criminal, into the dark... without his gun at the ready.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:01 PM

30. He had it in a holster and he said Martin reached for his gun. Must have known, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:24 PM

31. They were wrestling

It makes sense Trayvon would have felt it. After all - in all that time he was on the phone with Dee Dee he never mentioned a gun. Even when she told him to run .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:28 PM

32. I thought he was bashing his head in at the time. Of course, he only had superficial scratches.

Has it ever occur to you that your gunner boy was lying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:37 PM

33. I am relying on the government eye witness

That collaborated Z's story. The guy who had Trayvon on top of Z beating the shit out of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:47 AM

53. answer the question


Has it ever occur to you that your gunner boy was lying? Are you suggesting that someone who's studied SYG gun law didn't know he could get off with some tweaks to his story and some magic words like "I feared for my life"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:52 AM

57. Of course he could lie

He is a piece of shit. Unfortunately the government didn't have the evidence to destroy his story - they even collaborated key parts of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:42 PM

69. the "witness" did not see how it started

Your witness only saw the fight towards the end.

And, again... from having looked at the 2-3 Z police interviews and the crime scene walk through... they're not asking the right questions. So the question remains how much of SYG interferes with police work in such cases in that the focus becomes the shooting and not whether Z was the aggressor? If he was he then had no SYG rights... Martin did.

Are you yet sensing how perverse this case was?

Probably not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 07:01 PM

73. It was not perverse

Just poorly investigated and prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:15 PM

77. but your bottom line is SYG is not to blame

I think having SYG over an investigator's head warps the investigation itself.

After 20 posts, you might want to finally want to reveal your agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 09:34 PM

81. No agenda

I think Z should be jail. Have been saying that all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:47 PM

86. and yet

All along? I must have missed that.

And yet you're not defending Z, you seem to be defending SYG as a a principle. All this deflection serves some purpose for you.

Care to share?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:55 PM

87. I think you are wrong about SYG and it's role in the trial

That's all. Does everyone that disagrees with you have an agenda? Or can they simply think you are wrong and feel that it is a worthwhile topic to have an interesting conversation about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:19 PM

15. Trayvon WAS aware that some guy was following him

As stated by the friend that was on the phone with Trayvon. I've always believed that was part of the reason Trayvon did not return home - he didn't want to lead a possible pervert to his house where his younger brother was the only person waiting for him.

It also would explain why Trayvon took so long to get to where his body was - he had time to start up the walkway towards home, see Zimmerman's vehicle at the end of the block and head away from his house where Zimmerman cut him off.

He didn't have to know that Zimmerman had a gun to be in fear for his life from some weirdo following him and then confronting him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:22 PM

17. Yet we know Trayvon lost Z

And Z was headed back to his car. How scared was he if he chose to go back to confront Z.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:39 PM

19. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had driven to the back gate

Which is where Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman's car and turned back. The house where Trayvon was staying was almost at the end of the block with the back gate to the community just beyond there. I think Trayvon was headed home, saw the car at the end of the block, turned back and was confronted by Zimmerman at the other end of the sidewalk. That fits with what Trayvon's friend testified to and fits with the timeline of Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher.

Zimmerman's car was found close to the corner that led to the path where the confrontation took place. I don't believe Zimmerman was "headed back to his car" - the timing from his call, the distances and when the 911 calls came in because of the gunshot is too tight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:17 PM

21. The car was parked in the opposite direction from his house

if he continued straight to his house he was moving away from the truck, not towards it.



He did not tell the dispatcher he was driving to the back gate - his truck was found where it is depicted on the map.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:01 PM

36. The transcript of Zimmerman's call says he WAS driving to the back gate

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance. ..fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah
https://archive.org/stream/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman_djvu.txt


I believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon towards the back gate, then turned around and drove back towards the front entrance to the community. That is why Zimmerman's vehicle was parked facing back that direction.

48 seconds into Zimmerman's call is when he said Trayvon was at the clubhouse (1) on your diagram. 2 minutes in is when he said Trayvon was running towards the back entrance. 2 minutes, 25 seconds is when Trayvon got the call from his friend, about the same time the dispatcher tells Zimmerman, "Ok, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman's call ends at 4 minutes 11 seconds, Trayvon's call ends about 3 seconds later after she hears interchange with Trayvon and unknown follower.

Between the time Zimmerman was told he didn't need to follow right up to the point where the friend heard Trayvon talk to an unknown follower, Trayvon was on the phone with his friend, telling her he was scared. That does not sound like a person stalking a hapless Zimmerman. It sounds more like a young man who was frightened by being followed for some unknown reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:09 PM

38. That conversation took place at 2 on the map

Trayvon ran down the sidewalk numbered 4. Zimmerman got out of his car at three to chase him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:19 PM

44. The timing does not work

I did an analysis, estimated distances and correlated with the transcript and with the timestamps for Trayvon's calls and got this:

[quote]The underlined times are from the police call log, the other times are accumulated time from my notes on the recorded call - and come at the end of the comment/event logged. If you add those times to the beginning time logged as the connection to the Sanford PD non emergency system, you get the actual time.

19:09:34 CALL CONNECTED

<SNIP>

02:06:65 Shit he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
02:09:47 (seat belt alarm)
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the
neighborhood. (car door slam)
02:14:18
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking (unintelligible)
02:22:36
19:11:59 SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah (wind noises)
02:25:20
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

<SNIP>

02:38:14
(Wind noises stop some time in here)

<SNIP>

04:11:00 (recording of call ends)
19:13:41 COMPL NEW REQ LEO 1045 BEFORE 1056
19:16:00 Time approximate - call with girlfriend ends after she hears
interchange with Trayvon and unknown follower (cell company on logs calls by the minute - this call could have ended any time from 19:15:01 to 19:16:00)
19:17:00 Officer Ricardo Ayalla dispatched/arrived
19:17:11 Officer Timothy Smith arrived. As he arrived notified by dispatch
of shots fired.[/quote]

At 19:11:48 Zimmerman slams his car door. The dispatcher hears that and wind noises, asks if Zimmerman is following. At 19:12:12 Zimmerman says OK when told he doesn't need to follow. A minute and forty three second later, Zimmerman's call ends at 19:13:45.


During his video taped walk through the day after the shooting, Zimmerman claims he stayed on the phone while walking across the block to look for a street number (and claims that is because the dispatcher asked him for one which was a lie) and while he was walking back Martin jumped him. The timing does NOT work.

This distance from Zimmerman's truck, across that block then back to where he claims Martin jumped him is 330 feet, average walking speed would cover that in 75 seconds. Zimmerman would have been jumped before he got off the phone with Sanford PD and minutes before the 911 calls began and the shot was heard.

Here's what works for me for the timing:

Martin's path was the shortest route to get back to where he was staying. If he took a shortcut between townhouses to get off the main road, then walked to the mail boxes next to the club house he would have passed Zimmerman just as Zimmerman told the operator "He's coming to check me out." at 19:10:50. Martin told his friend that he was taking shelter - probably under the mailbox structure - then talked to her about the "creepy ass cracker" watching him. He told her he was going to run and their call dropped before 19:12. Zimmerman said "He's running" at 19:11:40.

The distance from the mailboxes to the sidewalk T is a little over 400 feet, the distance from the T to where Martin was staying is about the same. It would take about 90 seconds to cover each distance at a walk. Martin could have been home by 19:15 if all he had done was walk - but after their last call connected at 19:12 he told his friend he'd lost the guy and he was almost home, then said the guy was following again.

I think Zimmerman either walked or drove to the end of the block and Martin saw him and turned back up the path to get away from his stalker. Zimmerman then doubled back to intercept Martin at the other end of the block. If the extra distance and time is added to when Zimmerman said Martin ran from the mailboxes, that puts the two of them back at the T at just after 19:16 - the same time Martin's last call was disconnected, right when the first 911 call about the yelling begins and the right timing for the shot to be fired and Officer Smith to be notified of a shot fired at 19:17:11.

One of the constant refrains has been "Why didn't Martin just go home?" This scenario explains it - he was trying to just go straight home, but Zimmerman was stalking him and Martin doubled back to try to avoid the "creepy ass cracker".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:21 PM

16. We only have Z's word

It's not credible to believe Z was reaching for his "phone" when confronted by the person he's stalking. Z went out into the dark chasing Martin... and he would not have his gun ready? I don't believed it was holstered under his jacket. I believe it was in his pocket. What's Z's story... he doesn't bother to tell Martin he's "community watch" but is going to call 911 with Martin right there?

All we have is Z's account of where the gun was and when Martin saw it... and Z had every reason to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:23 PM

18. We have the government's witness

That testified he saw Trayvon on top of Z pounding him. He didn't see a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:17 AM

65. Zimmerman was a typical gun nut. They dream about the day they can finally shoot someone.

It's a fantasy of theirs. They want to be the hero, and their gun makes them feel powerful.

I have no problem with normal gun owners. Gun nuts are crazy and can't wait to shoot people. It's a wacko power fantasy in their pathetic lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:36 PM

3. There are more than a few on DU who still defend the Zman as a law abiding citizen and

refuse to accept any research that shows a correlation between SYG laws and an increase in homicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:56 PM

9. Yep. Worse, they count Zman's murdering TM as a justified use of a gun for defense. Deplorable.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:00 PM

12. At least "Florida Man" Michael Dunn was finally convicted (during a retrial) for murdering

17-year-old Jordan Davis over music that Dunn thought was too loud.

After 30 hours of deliberation, the jury in the first trial deadlocked over the first-degree murder charge and he was convicted only on 3 counts of attempted murder for firing TEN SHOTS into the kids' van when they fled the parking lot after he had shot Jordan.

Fortunately, he was retried, and after less than 5 hours, the second jury convicted him.

But despite the fact that it was (or should have been) a slam-dink case, that first jury just couldn't see the shooting as first-degree murder.

Perhaps part of the problem is that most jurors don't realize that premeditation can occur during the actual event, without having to plan things out days in advance of the killing. But we know that if a black man had done to a vehicle of white teens what Dunn did to a group of unarmed black kids, the common jury confusion over what constitutes premeditation would not even have entered into consideration.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:31 PM

24. Yes. This has always been the case, and the reason why this is usch a travesty. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:56 PM

29. You're not going far enough. Trayvon had that right even without SYG.

 

The longtime law of self-defense allows a person to use deadly force against an assailant if the conditions are met -- the conditions being that the person has an actual and reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Two variations are:
* The "retreat rule" -- there is no privilege to use deadly force if the person could instead avoid danger by safely retreating.
* "Stand your ground" -- the person is privileged to use deadly force even if a safe retreat is available.

If the encounter had occurred in a "retreat rule" state and if Trayvon had had a gun and had used it to kill Zimmerman, then the questions for the jury would be whether Trayvon met the initial conditions and whether he could have safely retreated. With Zimmerman pointing a gun at him, yes, the conditions are met, and because they were out in the open, there was probably no safe retreat available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:59 PM

71. pointing a gun

"With Zimmerman pointing a gun at him, yes, the conditions are met, and because they were out in the open, there was probably no safe retreat available."

Under SYG Z didn't even have to point a gun at Martin to give him the right to use deadly force. Just fearing the perp has a gun is sufficient


776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

The judge's instructions flesh this out more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 07:53 PM

74. There are two separate issues here.

 

I think that every U.S. state has the same law on the first issue, namely that the privilege to use deadly force in self-defense is available only to someone who actually and reasonably believes that there's a threat. Whether a defendant who's being tried for homicide had such a belief would normally be a jury question. Some defendants might be acquitted even if they didn't see a gun. Others might be convicted even if there was a gun, if the conduct of the gun owner didn't give the defendant cause to fear for his or her own life. It would all depend on the circumstances.

The point of the retreat rule is that, in some states, even a defendant who had such a belief could still be convicted if s/he could have avoided the problem by retreating. In contrast, in a "Stand Your Ground" state, there is no such requirement.

I was agreeing with you that, under Florida law, Trayvon could probably have shot Zimmerman and yet deserved to be acquitted. My point was that he might well get the same result in other states, where "Stand Your Ground" is not the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:07 PM

37. Zimmy was bird dogging Trayvon.




I'm not a Black teenager but I would be apprehensive about someone who appeared to be stalking me. The situation most likely escalated because neither one knew the other's intentions. If Zimmy didn't have a gun it would not have ended up with one of them dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:09 PM

39. Unfortunately, only Zimmerman had murder on his mind

that day and came prepared to murder a high school kid. If Trayvon was White, Zimmerman would be in jail and we all know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:10 PM

40. If Travon was white they would have burned anyone with a hispanic name or any

black under those circumstances. I think we all know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 11:11 AM

63. Here's why SYG is a bad law - It doesn't care about what happened before the shooting.

George Zimmerman clearly created the situation where he needed to use his gun. He was the aggressor. This fact was never under dispute. Trayvon Martin only attacked because Zimmerman was following him. Even right wingers can't dispute these facts. Zimmerman admitted to stalking Trayvon Martin in his car.

The problem is, the law didn't care. It only cared that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman (in self-defense, in my opinion), which made Zimmerman's actions self-defense under the law.

Here's the problem: you can provoke people, and then use the SYG law to legally murder someone. For example, you can go up to a group of teenagers, call them slurs and insult them, and then when one of them tries to attack you, you can legally shoot them with no consequences. You're not supposed to be able to pick fights with SYG, but then it becomes your word versus the victim's. If the victim is dead and can't tell what really happened, it doesn't matter what happened before, does it?

If you're white, the police will by default take your side in a SYG case. You can get away with murder by provoking people to attack you and then shooting them.

There should always be a duty to retreat if it is possible and nobody else is in danger. Otherwise, it creates situations where murder is encouraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneironaut (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:51 PM

70. self defense....

The problem is, the law didn't care. It only cared that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman (in self-defense, in my opinion), which made Zimmerman's actions self-defense under the law.

This is where this incident differs from your example of provoking kids.

Martin did not sucker punch Z out of the blue. Martin asked Z why he was following him. He had that right. He punched Z only after Z refused to ID himself... and as he reached into his pocket, he claims, for his phone. Given the circumstances... that WAS a threatening move. Martin had mere seconds to wait to see what Z was pulling out of his pocket. Under SYG he had the right to strike first even use deadly force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:05 PM

75. I agree and thank you. Martin responsibly feared for his life.

Zimmerman was the attacker. This much is clear. He absolutely did not have a right to self defense any more than a rapist who starts losing the fight and pulls a gun out. Logically, it doesn't matter who punched first. My problem with the law is that it doesn't care - Zimmerman survived, so his story was told.

Never mind the damning 911 call where he chased Trayvon. Never mind his aggressive actions that are not in dispute. The SYG law doesn't care. This is wrong. Legalized murder...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 09:14 PM

80. a young black male has no ground to stand on.

if he would have shot zimmerman he would be in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullimiami (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:22 PM

83. Florida statitics disagree with you.

More blacks have been successful with the SYG defense than whites have, according to research done by the press in Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eniwetok (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 09:39 PM

82. Silly wabbit, Stand Your Ground is for white people!

This is Redneckistan Florida we're talking about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:41 PM

84. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread