General Discussion

onenote

(46,135 posts)

167. Not really

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:30 AM

Jul 2013

Following someone and even confronting them with a demand that they explain their conduct is not illegal and does not constitute provocation that would negate a self-defense claim. While Zimmerman's decision to pursue Trayvon was inappropriate and stupid it wasn't illegal.
As for their respective "stand your ground rights," when Trayvon was confronted by Zimmerman, he had several options: ignore him and keep walking, respond to him, engage him in a physical confrontation. If he had done the latter, he would not be protected under the stand your ground provision, because only a person who is being attacked has stand your ground rights. So, ultimately, it really does come down to a question of who threw the first punch. And as far as I can tell, the evidence presented to the jury on that question is not particularly clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

221 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you have a gun and the other guy doesn't . . . [View all] Brigid Jul 2013 OP

I would think that too. madashelltoo Jul 2013 #1

Is he expected to just keep being beaten up? dkf Jul 2013 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #3

Too late. What is done is done. dkf Jul 2013 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #7

Even if it resulted in death huh? dkf Jul 2013 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #16

Maybe because he shot TM. dkf Jul 2013 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #27

Yeah I am a coward...I would have shot someone who was slamming me into the ground too. dkf Jul 2013 #75

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #80

Obviously that wouldn't be right. dkf Jul 2013 #104

Why are you assuming this man thinks like an average person? NoOneMan Jul 2013 #110

He makes more sense to me than everyone who would let their head be repeatedly slammed into sidewalk dkf Jul 2013 #113

The very fact a 160lb kid with 1 free arm could do that means he was letting it happen NoOneMan Jul 2013 #116

Just wondering, have you ever had your head slammed into a sidewalk? Scootaloo Jul 2013 #142

I have. I have a hard head though. Quick blackness for me NoOneMan Jul 2013 #149

Exactly Scootaloo Jul 2013 #161

I don't necessarily disagree anomiep Jul 2013 #163

Not true. I was in a fight where I was doing the head slamming TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #219

Show the evidence that his head was repeatedly slammed. He had a couple of lightly bleeding 1monster Jul 2013 #217

Assuming he was being slammed into the ground repeatedly without miraculously getting a concussion NoOneMan Jul 2013 #83

Yet. You don't know it would have ended dkf Jul 2013 #109

If I was a nut enough to get into that situation why give a fuck about what I thought in the moment? NoOneMan Jul 2013 #111

Obviously he didn't know what he was getting in to. dkf Jul 2013 #115

He doesn't know what he got himself into still NoOneMan Jul 2013 #117

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #131

you would have been well advised to stay in your fucking truck as well frylock Jul 2013 #134

You are correct, we (and the jury) don't know what happened Travis_0004 Jul 2013 #176

No full grown man - even one in the midst of an ass kicking - thinks for a second he will be alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #41

Really? pipoman Jul 2013 #54

Zero, evidently. Lex Jul 2013 #63

Are people seriously trying to justify murder Just Saying Jul 2013 #68

Yes, because they are cowards Lex Jul 2013 #70

Yeah, really alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #72

Just can't discuss this or anything else civilly, eh? pipoman Jul 2013 #82

Hit alert alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #84

I like to let silliness (in the clinical sense) remain for all to see.. pipoman Jul 2013 #86

keep posting then, buddy alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #87

you think the right to self defense only applies to gun humpers Skittles Jul 2013 #210

+1 Lex Jul 2013 #93

Maybe if we didn't let any insecure men strap a gun on them.... (or any at all) NoOneMan Jul 2013 #99

26. NoOneMan Jul 2013 #102

This ^^ Just Saying Jul 2013 #64

Whether he thinks so or not anomiep Jul 2013 #189

Of course it happens alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #207

Sure anomiep Jul 2013 #212

Learned a valuable lesson Just Saying Jul 2013 #8

Seriously, these people think.. RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #13

Then you disagree with the law. You don't believe in a right to self defense. dkf Jul 2013 #18

I don't believe only an armed person has that right. N/t Just Saying Jul 2013 #21

No they both had that right. dkf Jul 2013 #32

There's no evidence that TM hit Z either. Just Saying Jul 2013 #38

How did Zimmerman know that Martin was unarmed? Jenoch Jul 2013 #39

Zimmerman was breaking the rules by carrying the gun on neighborhood watch duty to begin with. Brigid Jul 2013 #47

Why would he follow Trayvon at all? Just Saying Jul 2013 #49

I don't think Zimmerman Jenoch Jul 2013 #57

Mmmhmmm Just Saying Jul 2013 #62

I too believe Zimmerman Jenoch Jul 2013 #85

A manslaughter conviction doesn't make sense to me anomiep Jul 2013 #119

I mean anomiep Jul 2013 #121

It sure is confusing. Jenoch Jul 2013 #122

It's only my opinion on the logical implications of the jury instruction as written anomiep Jul 2013 #125

and, of course, now I think of a way. anomiep Jul 2013 #133

Me neither. I am stuck on this question also. dkf Jul 2013 #158

he knew because he got out of his truck.. frylock Jul 2013 #136

The kid still had the bag of Skittles in one of his perfectly clean, dead hands. displacedtexan Jul 2013 #181

I don't know. Jenoch Jul 2013 #185

Lol, I disagree with many laws. RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #22

No proof Z initiated physical contact. dkf Jul 2013 #42

Did I mention Z? RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #46

Actually that's not even the law. dkf Jul 2013 #55

What would those circumstances be? RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #60

I believe it is of you attempt to retreat but are unable to do so... dkf Jul 2013 #65

Just one question.... all american girl Jul 2013 #175

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #24

he's a scary black teenager...that's the high and low of it alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #43

I'm an elderly white female FloridaJudy Jul 2013 #162

He did. If they tussled over he gun and he shot z dkf Jul 2013 #51

Trayvon must have super vision Just Saying Jul 2013 #59

Possibly a justified murderer though. dkf Jul 2013 #74

no TM dna on gun.. frylock Jul 2013 #137

Does Trayvon Martin have a right to self defense? Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #26

Self Defense FloridaJudy Jul 2013 #107

You are making up your own rules. dkf Jul 2013 #151

They're just convincing me they shouldn't be carrying guns at all. Just Saying Jul 2013 #20

Every state has self defense laws. dkf Jul 2013 #152

Right Just Saying Jul 2013 #183

And if he had killed Zimmerman he could have claimed self defense. dkf Jul 2013 #188

You do realize how messed up that sounds? Just Saying Jul 2013 #192

Yes. In a deadly fight. dkf Jul 2013 #193

It wasn't a deadly fight Just Saying Jul 2013 #194

You don't know that. No one does. Was it impossible for TM to have done enough damage dkf Jul 2013 #195

I base my conclusion Just Saying Jul 2013 #197

I'm not defending the guy I am applying the evidence to the law. dkf Jul 2013 #198

Run away. RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #11

What you believe is meaningless in this context.. pipoman Jul 2013 #77

Really? Here I thought our discussion would impactthe jury's decision! RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #169

For as many people hereabouts pipoman Jul 2013 #179

He was told stay put Blackford Jul 2013 #17

Not really Carlpatrick Jul 2013 #81

You wouldn't make it to the jury. CokeMachine Jul 2013 #112

Might be too late to undo it, but ... Kennah Jul 2013 #159

Not really onenote Jul 2013 #167

If he initiated the physical confrontation... krispos42 Jul 2013 #23

But there is no evidence of that. dkf Jul 2013 #127

The stalking (while armed) might well be the evidence needed krispos42 Jul 2013 #143

What he did was not "stalking" in the legal sense. dkf Jul 2013 #148

I know. I'm not using it in the paparazzi sense krispos42 Jul 2013 #180

But that's not illegal. dkf Jul 2013 #182

You can if you think the person is about to attack you krispos42 Jul 2013 #184

Really? How would you establish that fact to the police? dkf Jul 2013 #186

Not a lawyer. krispos42 Jul 2013 #190

Speculation. I wondering if it was legal for TM to punch Z in the face if that was first contact. dkf Jul 2013 #191

I guess now it doesn't matter, does it? krispos42 Jul 2013 #221

under florida law, the right to stand your ground requires onenote Jul 2013 #168

I think so NoOneMan Jul 2013 #34

IF Martin was beating Jenoch Jul 2013 #50

A schizophrenic psycho killer doesn't know how far his victims will go. God told them they are satan NoOneMan Jul 2013 #61

I was unaware of Zimmerman's Jenoch Jul 2013 #71

Its a comparison. We cannot set the bar at "crazy" and cater to it NoOneMan Jul 2013 #79

I'm not disagreeing with much of your post. Jenoch Jul 2013 #89

I am not calling him schizophrenic. I am comparing him to a mentally ill individual NoOneMan Jul 2013 #94

I was positive I Jenoch Jul 2013 #96

Or course you did NoOneMan Jul 2013 #97

He was on psychotropic prescription meds, making him an "irresponsible" gun owner. Hoyt Jul 2013 #204

Well why didn't TM stop? dkf Jul 2013 #130

Because he was shot in the heart and killed NoOneMan Jul 2013 #135

He should have stayed in his car. He shouldn't have pursued Martin. doc03 Jul 2013 #58

Assumes he WAS beaten up, unprovoked lolly Jul 2013 #141

He has documented injuries. dkf Jul 2013 #160

"Beaten up" complain jane Jul 2013 #144

First, he wasn't being beaten up TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #146

You've got Zimmy's back, I see. kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #153

I can read and comprehend the law. dkf Jul 2013 #155

what about the right to walk a public road Skittles Jul 2013 #203

There is a crucial amount of time that no one but Zimmerman and the now dead Martin knows justiceischeap Jul 2013 #170

That is entirely speculative with no evidence. dkf Jul 2013 #171

I understand that but as a non-jury member and a person participating in a discussion justiceischeap Jul 2013 #173

So, in your opinion Zimmerman should walk free Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #174

his opinion is the right to self defense only applies to gun humpers Skittles Jul 2013 #209

Can't stand these Zim people beating around the bush Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #211

He shouldn't have started this whole incident is what he should have done. complain jane Jul 2013 #200

LOL Skittles Jul 2013 #201

I agree with you krispos42 Jul 2013 #4

Well said. anomiep Jul 2013 #15

Yes, Zman was well versed in legalities. I wish gun owners Hoyt Jul 2013 #28

"I wish gun owners would quit studying the law to determine when they can shoot people. " Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #30

Well, Zimmerman is a good example, and the gungeoneers sure spend a lot of Hoyt Jul 2013 #37

The counterpoint, though, is that anyone electing to have a gun for self-defense MUST know the law. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #44

A little morality -- and sense of right and wrong -- would be better knowledge. Hoyt Jul 2013 #206

They're not mutually-exclusive. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #215

+1 Just Saying Jul 2013 #40

So you want to whine and bitch about ignorant "Rambo wannabes"... krispos42 Jul 2013 #45

Do they run articles on why yahoos should not carry in public? Hoyt Jul 2013 #56

Their articles stress the seriousness of being armed in public. krispos42 Jul 2013 #78

I strongly agree. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #6

I don't think there's a legal duty for "responsibility to make sure a confrontation doesn't turn Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #9

And you are not talking morality either, but gun folks seldom are. Hoyt Jul 2013 #29

Indeed...in this case in particular, the so-called liberal gun nuts are all hiding behind supposed alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #48

This is a legal case. The law is what matters. Nothing either guy was doing was illegal, Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #88

Yes, gunners are always most interested in how laws are written to protect their use of guns. Hoyt Jul 2013 #178

The onus is definitely on the person with the gun anomiep Jul 2013 #12

Apparently, as long as the only witness is killed, the shooter should be able bushisanidiot Jul 2013 #14

This is kind of a horseshit setup. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #19

That's true, but that's not how most conflicts start krispos42 Jul 2013 #31

Agreed. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #69

Then we're in agreement. krispos42 Jul 2013 #90

Actually, in that case . . . Brigid Jul 2013 #35

That all depends anomiep Jul 2013 #52

Trayvon Martin had the sidewalk: that's how the analogy makes sense alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #53

Shoot first laws are horseshit to begin with Major Nikon Jul 2013 #67

No doubt. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #73

Well anomiep Jul 2013 #98

Here's the problem I have with these laws Major Nikon Jul 2013 #103

It is not zero benefit anomiep Jul 2013 #114

Reasonable use of force means exactly that Major Nikon Jul 2013 #124

Relentless pursuit is not an exception to a duty to retreat anomiep Jul 2013 #128

Hogwash Major Nikon Jul 2013 #139

Not hogwash anomiep Jul 2013 #145

More hypothetical, less substance Major Nikon Jul 2013 #154

I would suggest to you anomiep Jul 2013 #157

and anomiep Jul 2013 #132

How do you retreat if you are pinned down and calling for help? dkf Jul 2013 #150

I think the lie he told on Sean (Hero of the gungeon) Hannity show Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #33

SO many lies by Zimmerman. Lex Jul 2013 #66

That, and the screaming ending immediately following the sound of the gunshot. Adsos Letter Jul 2013 #118

There's no information there anomiep Jul 2013 #123

I think you are 100% right. Union Scribe Jul 2013 #36

I own guns PD Turk Jul 2013 #76

I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they also had a gun or charged me. Including if someone was in my brewens Jul 2013 #91

No warning shots anomiep Jul 2013 #100

My advice is that warning shots are never a good idea. ... spin Jul 2013 #120

A very salient point. Old and In the Way Jul 2013 #92

The participant who doesn't fear for his/her life. flvegan Jul 2013 #95

In the South and the West customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #101

That's why I am extremely polite. ... spin Jul 2013 #105

Fuckin' A. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #106

Only One Party had a gun - only one had complete control of the situation. Old and In the Way Jul 2013 #108

The premise that having a gun means having complete control of the situation anomiep Jul 2013 #140

Well, if you are a cop it doesn't matter. You shoot first for your own safety The Straight Story Jul 2013 #126

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #129

Fortunately anomiep Jul 2013 #138

I'm a female. If some random guy starts following me home complain jane Jul 2013 #147

No. You are not threatening his life or his health. ... spin Jul 2013 #165

Okay. complain jane Jul 2013 #199

It depends on the circumstances anomiep Jul 2013 #213

Also - anomiep Jul 2013 #214

how about if you attack someone because they pull a gun on you? Skittles Jul 2013 #216

If that happens you have good reason to fear for your health or your life. ... spin Jul 2013 #220

If you wouldn't go somewhere WITHOUT a gun, make damned sure you don't go there WITH a gun. Kennah Jul 2013 #156

Truth anomiep Jul 2013 #164

You should add one thing to your list ... spin Jul 2013 #166

I think that it's a little bit more than that MrScorpio Jul 2013 #172

Clearly. You are correct. geckosfeet Jul 2013 #177

Depends who starts the confrontation. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #187

The attacker always assumes responsibility. ileus Jul 2013 #196

But. but, but liberal N proud Jul 2013 #202

isn't it something? Skittles Jul 2013 #205

If a gunfighter in the old west shot B Calm Jul 2013 #208

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #218