Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You protect and laud the actions of a man who used both laws to walk away from gunning down an innocent black teen.
I look at this case and the loud music case and realize that if someone with an Axe to grind wants to kill a black teenager, the laws are practically in his favor.
I worry about what may happen to some lunatic who decides he wants to prey on young people and use these laws and circumstances to protect him if things go awry.
You can't see or appreciate that because you are too busy praising GZ and vilifying TM.
If you actually knew the facts of the case, you would know that SYG was not a factor. It was pure self defense.
Tray Tray was innocent. . . Right up to the moment that he attacked Zimmerman. At that moment, he became the perpetrator of a felonious assault on Zimmerman.
I can't imagine why you would say that. There is nothing in the Zimmerman/Martin case that would lead one to that conclusion.
People still continue to praise this guy and put him on a pedestal as a hero, despite his extensive criminal record outside of this incident. Sick.
So, does that mean that you believe someone who breaks the law is guilty of everything else they are accused? I assume you must believe this since you point to his record "outside of this incident".
BTW, one of those "extensive criminal" events (extensive, lol) was assaulting a police officer. A police officer that Zimmerman felt was being abusive to Zimmerman's black friend.
I'm not praising him, putting him on any pedestal or calling him a hero. I'm just pointing out that the facts support his claim of self defense - which they do.
What is sick is that you want to lock up a person because you feel they are bad. You don't care about the facts or the law, you just have bad emotional feelings and believe that is enough to lock up a person. Then again, some people are just completely ignorant of most of the facts and get their information from tee-shirts and poster boards.
If you actually knew the facts of the case, you would know that SYG was not a factor. It was pure self defense.
Tray Tray was innocent. . . Right up to the moment that he attacked Zimmerman. At that moment, he became the perpetrator of a felonious assault on Zimmerman.
I can't imagine why you would say that. There is nothing in the Zimmerman/Martin case that would lead one to that conclusion.
SYG was used to let him go home the night of the crime with a pat on the butt. It allowed the Sanford police to do a half ass job of gathering evidence at the scene.
First, there is nothing unlawful about reporting a suspicious person to the police, then, while still on the phone with the police, following that person to keep him in sight so that you can tell the dispatcher where the officers can find the SP when they arrive in the area. Right away there is a legal problem with Martin's response to being followed, because there was nothing unlawful about Zimmerman's initial conduct.
you're right!
There was nothing unlawful about his conduct. But he was told by the dispatcher, "we don't need you to do that.
At that point,go back to your car get in and wait!
The evidence indicates that Zimmerman did break off from following TM and started back toward his car, but before reaching his car was attacked by TM, who had circled back around looking for Zimmerman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
Second, even the perceived threat when someone appears to be following you is no more than a potential threat, not the imminent threat of harm necessary to justify use of force in self-defense. Legally, "imminent," as in imminent threat in cases of self-defense, means imminent. It means that the person being threatened must act in the moment to defend himself, or be attacked in the next moment. Even allowing for the fact that for all Martin knew Zimmerman could have been intending to mug him, the mere act of following falls well short of the imminent threat of harm.
Potential definition:
"Possible but not yet actual"
If you're out taking a stroll and some guy starts running towards and following you, how would you handle it?
I’m assuming you’re talking about a potential definition for “imminent threat.” “Possible but not yet actual” may be a potential definition in a general sense, but it’s not the legal definition. Legally, an imminent threat means exactly that--imminent--as in happening in the moment. It means you must act to defend yourself in this moment or in the next moment you will be attacked. Being followed, believing you’re being followed, etc., is not an imminent threat by this definition, but more of a potential threat.
If I felt I was being followed and felt that the person following me was really a threat, the most prudent move would seem to be to put as much distance as possible between this person and myself. One thing I would not do if I ran away and lost the person would be to go back looking for this threatening person to initiate a face-to-face encounter, which is what the evidence indicates that TM did after he had lost GZ and arrived back at the house where he was staying. TM could have just gone inside and let that be the end of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
We all agree that was a poor decision from a 17 year old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Legally in Stanford Fl, he was within the Law. But That still doesn't resolve the poor decision making on Zimmerman's behalf.
Taking prescription Drugs while on watch and not staying in the car were poor decisions.
I believe in helping Leo's as much possible, until the point it starts to endanger your own life.
I think that sometimes people discussing this case on these forums are talking about different things. As a former LEO, and a citizen concerned about individual and Constitutional rights, I’m mainly interested in the legal aspects of this case.
I'm also concerned about the potential threat to us all if we just accept a case where, with no evidence that GZ broke any law—and therefore no legal basis for charging him with a crime—state officials pandered to an outraged public by taking a case out of the local d.a.’s hands and maneuvering around the legal requirements about evidence to charge GZ with a crime. I’m concerned about what will be the next time this happens, and the next time after that, and . . .
If you want to criticize GZ, fine, but keep in mind that the criticisms in your passage quoted just above are more about personal choices, and what kind of a person Zimmerman may be, not about whether he had a legal right to defend himself against Martin’s attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
He'd be alive today if he'd called the police.
Agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
However, it's important to keep in mind that a black youth from a ghetto area (at least sort of ghetto) may not have absorbed the idea that you automatically just call the police when you think there may be trouble.
Although TM had a checkered past,his Mom and Brother are educated people. I have no reason believe TM prescribed to the notion That, "all black kids from the ghetto think all cops are bad" We Don't know if TM prescribed to that theory,because we didn't know Trayvon Martin. We Can assume, but you know what happens when you assume.
I’ll admit that in this passage I was the one straying away from the legal issues. Maybe that’s because I do get dismayed by reading repeated posts where people personally criticize the two people primarily involved in this case, when they don’t/didn't actually know either of them. In this case, I reacted to yet another post, of many I’ve seen, personally criticizing TM for not just calling the police. Maybe I should have made it more clear that I was simply pointing out the possibility, not meaning to imply this as certain, that TM’s background might not lead him to automatically see the police as a solution.
Hmmm, perhaps I really was emphasizing my interest in the legal issues, in a way. Maybe my disgruntlement with the personal judgements about the players in the incident has to do with the fact that personal judgments based on impressions people have picked up from the news not only may be inaccurate but also do lead away from a discussion of what the law says about all this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
. . . [the]reality that you can't necessarily say that Martin should have "just called the police . . ."
Why Not?
Again, I probably should have been more clear that I was just offering critics of TM a point to consider when they seem to express the idea that TM should automatically have called the police. It’s worth considering that what may seem automatic to a middle-class, middle-aged white person might not necessarily be a thought that would automatically come to the mind of a black teenager.
Show one single bit of evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. The bottom line is you can't. All you can do is say that because Martin was black, Zimmerman profiled him. That is all you have, nothing more. This is why you CHOOSE to ignore the FBI report.
Regarding the bolded passage, PJA, you really can't possibly know this. You'd have to be able to read Zimmerman's mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA
Again..how was he acting suspicious???
Based on Zimmerman's brief description of Martin's behavior to the dispatcher, I can't say for sure whether I would have regarded this behavior as suspicious if I had spotted something like this when I worked in law enforcement. Depending on the details, it's possible that I would have. Whether I would have or not would have had nothing to do with the person's race, only his behavior:
It seems odd for someone to be "wandering around, looking about" [GZ's description to the dispatcher] when it's raining and most people would want to hurry straight home and get out of the rain. That's not terribly suspicious in itself, but it most likely would have at least caught my attention.
GZ to dispatcher: "He looks like he's on drugs . . ." There's one where I'd need more detail about what GZ saw that gave him this impression, in order to have any idea whether I might have taken a close look. If I'd had sound basis to believe someone appeared intoxicated, I certainly would have approached the person.
Just a couple of points in GZ's description of Martin's behavior. Again, I'd have to have more detail about what GZ saw in order to have any idea whether I would have approached TM as a suspicious person, but it's possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA
I'm black so am I suspicious????
I'm black [I'm not, but to paraphrase the quote] so the only possible reason I might be regarded as suspicious is that I'm black? I'm black so that makes it impossible for my behavior to appear suspicious?
And Trayvonn did nothing that would cause Zimmeran's suspicion of him to be justified.
This might or might not be the case. (See post 119 just above regarding my thoughts on how I might have viewed TM's behavior back in my LEO days.) However, any citizen may call the police about something the citizen feels does not look right. Then it's up to the police to decide how to handle the call.
The evidence supports the likely scenario that:
at the time the dispatcher told GZ they didn't need him to follow TM, or shortly thereafter, GZ did in fact break off from following TM and headed back in the opposite direction, back toward his car and toward the general vicinity of the location where GZ and the dispatcher agreed that GZ should meet officers when they arrived in the area;
TM continued in the direction in which he had been running, with GZ now walking away in the opposite direction, arrived back at the house where he'd been staying, then, instead of entering the house and letting that be the end of it, went back the other way, looking for GZ, and when he found GZ then launched a sudden attack against GZ.
Legally, this made TM the aggressor, as GZ never had actually attacked TM, nor created the imminent threat of attack, and even the merely potential threat GZ had caused by following TM was over at the point when TM went back looking for GZ and attacked GZ.
That is all that really matters legally, not whether Zimmerman did or did not have what a cop would consider good reason to regard Martin as suspicious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
