**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[misterx]

The jury can only find someone guilty of a lesser included offense if that offense is included as part of the jury instruction. Sometimes prosecutors don't want to give the jury that option. Defense attorneys usually try to get a lesser included offense put in to "hedge their bets". If it's not in there, and the jury is of the mindset that they do not want to charge with the main offense, the defendant can walk even if the jury believes he's guilty of something. Likewise a judge at a pretrial hearing can determine that probable cause lacks for the charged offense even if it arguably exists for a lesser offense. If a case gets dismissed by a judge the prosecutor can come back and charge the defendant again without double jeopardy being an issue. But if a jury acquits on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter was not an available option, then double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution. (Don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure).

This was my understanding of it as well, but when do other possible charges have to be brought forward?

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

You make the false assumption that when 2 people fight there is always 1 person in the right and 1 person in the wrong. Generally speaking, in most fights, both parties are equally guilty of assault.

You make the false assumption that I'm speaking in absolutes when I'm obviously talking about one situation....

Of course there isn't always one in the right and one in the wrong, but in a case like this there clearly has to be an aggressor. Either Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation or Martin did.

 

[misterx]

That's not what you said initially.



Key words "feels threatened". You have a right to self defense if you "feel threatened". So once again, how did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?

One more time since you can't, or won't, grasp it.

"He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."

 

[Sam I am]

He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened.

It's amazing how many people here say things that are inconsistent with the rule of law. Killing another person is very serious, and is only acceptable as a last resort to prevent another person from coming to mortal harm.

If you see someone slashing you or someone Else's tiers, you do not get to administer your own death penalty.
If you observe someone breaking into a closed storefront you do not get to administer your own death penalty.

You do not have the right to circumvent someone else's right to due process.

 

[jmdrake]

This was my understanding of it as well, but when do other possible charges have to be brought forward?

If it's a lesser included offense, at any time up to the charging of the jury. For example if you are charged with aggravated assault the prosecutor can always agree to a lesser included offense of simple assault. That doesn't hurt you at all because if you get convicted of the aggravated assault the lesser charge "merges" with the first. But if the prosecutor tried to add burglary or even jaywalking he'd have to go back and get a new indictment.

 

[jmdrake]

One more time since you can't, or won't, grasp it.

"He didn't have to feel threatened for his own physical safety to justify following him. He could have felt someone else's person or property was threatened."

One more time. I totally grasp what you meant to say. That's just not what you initially said.

 

[misterx]

It's amazing how many people here say things that are inconsistent with the rule of law. Killing another person is very serious, and is only acceptable as a last resort to prevent another person from coming to mortal harm.

If you see someone slashing you or someone Else's tiers, you do not get to administer your own death penalty.
If you observe someone breaking into a closed storefront you do not get to administer your own death penalty.


You do not have the right to circumvent someone else's right to due process.

You should have the right to stop them, and if they then proceed to threaten your life, you have the right to take theirs in order to save yours. What kills me is this attitude that we need to let criminals get away with everything for their safety and ours. Fuck safety, I'm going to stand up for what's right. I'm not going to depend on the police to protect my person and property and the property of others. I'm going to step in and stop it myself.

 

[misterx]

One more time. I totally grasp what you meant to say. That's just not what you initially said.

Actually it is, you just keep misconstruing my words and adding the word self defense where it is not.

 

[Sam I am]

You should have the right to stop them, and if they then proceed to threaten your life, you have the right to take theirs in order to save yours. What kills me is this attitude that we need to let criminals get away with everything for their safety and ours. Fuck safety, I'm going to stand up for what's right. I'm not going to depend on the police to protect my person and property and the property of others. I'm going to step in and stop it myself.

Fuck the Constution, I'm going to be judge jury and executioner anyway.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually it is, you just keep misconstruing my words and adding the word self defense where it is not.

Nope. I quoted you directly. I will quote you again.

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

You made the assertion that GZ was possibly feeling threatened just like TM was possibly feeling threatened. I raised the question of how did GZ feel threatened. Then you changed the argument to GZ didn't need to feel threatened to follow TM. Further GZ did more than just "keep an eye the person until police arrived". He got out of his car and pursued on foot. That's undisputed. If all he did was "keep an eye" on TM from the safety of his car none of this would have happened. Does that mean he didn't have a right to get out of his car? I'm not suggesting that. But I am saying that you didn't paint an accurate picture of what happened based on the undisputed facts.

 

[misterx]

Fuck the Constution, I'm going to be judge jury and executioner anyway.

Can you say hyperbole?

You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Sam I am]

You make the false assumption that I'm speaking in absolutes when I'm obviously talking about one situation....

Of course there isn't always one in the right and one in the wrong, but in a case like this there clearly has to be an aggressor. Either Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation or Martin did.

An example, If Trayvon initially Pushed Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman punched him in the face in anger, Zimmerman would still be guilty of murder.


Regardless of who struck who first. If Zimmerman willfully escalated the confrontation to the next level at any point, where he could otherwise have avoided a fight, then he had no right to murder.

and Stalking another person is a very aggressive act. If someone is stalking you. Even if they haven't "initiated violence" yet, than you would be right in considering the stalker to be a dangerous person. That doesn't give Trayvon the right to assault Zimmerman, but it does make Zimmerman an agressor.

 

[Madison320]

He had the right to follow- but not to do anything else. I think claiming self defense will be difficult since he was told not to follow the kid but continued (sounded like he was running- not just walking which is a more agressive action).

That's not what happened in the unedited 911 call.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "yes"
Dispatcher: "You don't need to do that"
Zimmerman: "ok"

I believe Zimmerman's story but I think he may have been negligent when he got out of his car since he was carrying. He told the 911 dispatcher that Trayvon was acting like there's something wrong with him. At one point he said Trayvon was coming over to check him out. So was Zimmerman partially responsible for putting himself in a position where Trayvon could get to him since Zimmerman had a gun and Zimmerman knew that Trayvon was potentially dangerous? I don't know myself. What if you were carrying a gun legally and driving along and saw 2 guys in a fight. You get out of your car and tell them to stop fighting. One guy turn on you and starts beating you and goes for your gun. You shoot him. Are you at least partly responsible for getting involved while carrying a gun?

 

[Sam I am]

Can you say hyperbole?

You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.

No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him. I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.

 

[misterx]

Nope. I quoted you directly. I will quote you again.

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

You made the assertion that GZ was possibly feeling threatened just like TM was possibly feeling threatened. I raised the question of how did GZ feel threatened. Then you changed the argument to GZ didn't need to feel threatened to follow TM. Further GZ did more than just "keep an eye the person until police arrived". He got out of his car and pursued on foot. That's undisputed. If all he did was "keep an eye" on TM from the safety of his car none of this would have happened. Does that mean he didn't have a right to get out of his car? I'm not suggesting that. But I am saying that you didn't paint an accurate picture of what happened based on the undisputed facts.

I never changed the argument. he didn't need to feel physically threatened. Obviously he felt his neighborhood was threatened, and got out of his car to make sure Trayvon didn't do anything to anyone or their property. Apparently you think the only way GZ could feel like Trayvon was threatening was if he thought physical harm was going to come to him personally. I disagree. Maybe I should have worded it differently, but you understand the principle, you are merely arguing semantics because you have no argument otherwise.

 

[misterx]

No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him. I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.

Good for you. I would chase him down and make sure he didn't get away, and hold him until the police arrived. You would let him get away, in all likelihood forever so that he could do it again. It is a lot easier to apprehend him at the time than it is for the police to figure out who he is and then go find him later.

The constitution restricts government, it doesn't restrict ordinary citizens.

 

[dmo069]

No I would protect her from from harm, as is allowed under self defense, but it the rapist saw me approaching and fled the scene, i would not shoot him. I would take a picture of him, and I would call the cops I would collect every item lying around to identify him, but I would not administer my own death senctence.

That's retarded. If someone is harming my family in that manner, there is no doubt I would shoot the perp and remove his tainted spore from the gene pool.

 

[jmdrake]

I never changed the argument. he didn't need to feel physically threatened. Obviously he felt his neighborhood was threatened, and got out of his car to make sure Trayvon didn't do anything to anyone or their property. Apparently you think the only way GZ could feel like Trayvon was threatening was if he thought physical harm was going to come to him personally. I disagree. Maybe I should have worded it differently, but you understand the principle, you are merely arguing semantics because you have no argument otherwise.

My initial question to you was simply "How was Zimmerman threatened when he was in his car". That's it. I'm glad you agree that he (Zimmerman) wasn't threatened. As for everything else, Zimmerman technically had a "right" to get out of his car and go up to Trayvon even if it was because he thought Trayvon was cute and wanted to ask him out on a date. Whether Zimmerman thought his "neighborhood" was "threatened" is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, back to your argument. To answer your original, now worded "better" question, clearly you do have stronger rights to act when you think you are personally threatened than you do when you think someone else's property is threatened. So your initial argument that someone people were treating GZ and TM as having different "rights" just doesn't hold water. You were attempting to compare apples to orangutans and draw some kind of conclusion. GZ could have kept an eye out Trayvon without putting his life or Trayvon's life in jeopardy. He chose a different route. Legal? Depending on exactly what happened possibly. Stupid? Definitely.

 

[jmdrake]

Can you say hyperbole?

You just turn and run away when you see someone raping your daughter. You wouldn't want to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Good example of why it's not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later. In my own "young and stupid days" I was having sex in the back of a car in a rough neighborhood. The police came up on me guns drawn. Once I had a chance to explain what was going on they put their guns away and just said "Carry on". Now say if this had been some neighborhood watch wannabecop that I didn't recognize as a cop? Say if as he approached me with his gun drawn I drew my own gun? If he killed me would that be self defense? Say if I killed him? NW patrols should at least be readily identifiable so that someone doesn't think they're getting mugged and draw down for no reason.

 

[misterx]

My initial question to you was simply "How was Zimmerman threatened when he was in his car". That's it. I'm glad you agree that he (Zimmerman) wasn't threatened. As for everything else, Zimmerman technically had a "right" to get out of his car and go up to Trayvon even if it was because he thought Trayvon was cute and wanted to ask him out on a date. Whether Zimmerman thought his "neighborhood" was "threatened" is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, back to your argument. To answer your original, now worded "better" question, clearly you do have stronger rights to act when you think you are personally threatened than you do when you think someone else's property is threatened. So your initial argument that someone people were treating GZ and TM as having different "rights" just doesn't hold water. You were attempting to compare apples to orangutans and draw some kind of conclusion. GZ could have kept an eye out Trayvon without putting his life or Trayvon's life in jeopardy. He chose a different route. Legal? Depending on exactly what happened possibly. Stupid? Definitely.

He may not have felt physically threatened, but he obviously felt Trayvon was a threat. Now that you admit Trayvon had the right to follow him though this is all irrelevant.

Bravery is stupid, but it's still commendable.