Trayvon Martin Case

[12thMan]

Yeah, I thought it was strange that the State's Attorney was even present to begin with and overturned the officer at the scene without collecting any facts, no DNA, no nothing. Just overturned it. Interesting.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

JoeRedskin, to date there are no witness that actually saw the incident from start to end. So it boils down to Zimmerman's word against Trayvon Martin's. And Trayvon Martin is dead.

Yes. No. Sorta. Agreed we have a critical gap. At the same time, we know there was a verbal confrontation based on the statement of the girlfriend. We know there was some type of physical altercation based on the eye witnesses.

At the least, Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter based on the 911 call and the girlfriend's statements and the "mutual combat" doctrine. However, it is the State's duty to prove murder so, lacking something more than what I have seen out there, I can't see them proving it at this point.

It will not be the first time a murderer has walked for lack of a witness. It happens in Baltimore all the time and usually the alleged murderer has a much more sordid history than Zimmerman.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yeah, I thought it was strange that the State's Attorney was even present to begin with and overturned the officer at the scene without collecting any facts, no DNA, no nothing. Just overturned it. Interesting.

Again, yes, no, sorta - police recommendations get overturned all the time. Hell, in Baltimore for a while, it was a HUGE bone of contention between the PD and State's Attorney. I would not be surprised if the SA took one look at this and said - this could be a problem, let's not rush into it. Again, I blame Florida's self-defense, immunity-from-arrest law. Rather than the "Stand-your-ground" law, this is the law that needs changing in Florida.

Seriously, the amount of bad judgment by the various actors in this case is amaziing - from Zimmerman, to the police, to the media, etc. it's just stunning.

[12thMan]

You live in Balitmore? I was up there for St. Paddy's. Good times.

[JoeRedskin]

Yup - been here since 1987.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.

The area I remembered was right by the road and side walk.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup - been here since 1987.

Get over to Mothers at all?

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Again, yes, no, sorta - police recommendations get overturned all the time. Hell, in Baltimore for a while, it was a HUGE bone of contention between the PD and State's Attorney. I would not be surprised if the SA took one look at this and said - this could be a problem, let's not rush into it. Again, I blame Florida's self-defense, immunity-from-arrest law. Rather than the "Stand-your-ground" law, this is the law that needs changing in Florida.

Seriously, the amount of bad judgment by the various actors in this case is amaziing - from Zimmerman, to the police, to the media, etc. it's just stunning.

thats a very good point, had never thought about it like that. also did not realize the immunity from arrest law was a seperate law than the stand your ground law. still i wouldn't mind seeing both of those laws amended.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The area I remembered was right by the road and side walk.

the area you remembered from what? i'm guessing a picture from the media? we already know how misleading those can be.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Get over to Mothers at all?

Nope. But, if you want ot meet up for a drink there, just let me know when. Beginning in a couple weeks my Friday nights free up as my wife takes the kids over to the In-laws on the weekends.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

thats a very good point, had never thought about it like that. also did not realize the immunity from arrest law was a seperate law than the stand your ground law. still i wouldn't mind seeing both of those laws amended.

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

you shouldn't have to, but theres also a lot of other things i shouldn't have to do. comes back to that whole common sense thing, have to take each case as it comes and for the most part just have some faith in humanity.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking.

I think any situation where you chase after a individual, the "stand your ground defense" should become null and void. I find it hard to believe that one can claim self defense when he was in fact being the aggressor and pursuing the other.

[JoeRedskin]

I wasn't saying Zimmerman had a right to the stand your ground defense. I don't think he did. Rather, I think it was Martin that could invoke the stand your ground defense. In Maryland, if he felt threatened by Zimmerman's pursuit, Martin had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman. In Florida, under the same circumstances, Martin did not.

I think, the idea that Zimmerman could invoke the "stand your ground" defense comes from the version of the story where Martin waylays Zimmerman as he returns to his car. A version not born out by the girlfriend's statement or, IMHO, a reasonable view of the scene.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

I believe in the social law that says "don't start shit, there won't be shit." I believe using deadly force as a last resort. I believe in seeking a safe place to retreat if you hear someone pop-offs. If you can't, by all means, get behind the nearest thing and aim to kill. I believe that people can lose it and shoot you dead for talking shit about their mama or spitting at them. I believe that would constitute manslaughter.

I believe the laws on the book are adequate. I don't believe Stand Your Ground solves any real world need or problem. I believe all it does is introduce uncertainty into the picture and makes it permissible to subjectively shoot someone.

Stand Your Ground Law:

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

1) He or she reasonably believes that 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;

I can come up with countless of scenarios that render the above law idiotic. I mean, it nullifies responsibility for the utterance of fighting words, instigation and escalation of a situation. It can potentially allows sadistic people to get away with murder. Any law that simply requires you to have wounds to justify self-defense is beyond idiotic.

Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.