**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

Why are you focused on the CCW? Regardless of what Zimmerman was doing, at no point is he not allowed to defend himself from harm. You have done the very thing you claim to stop, a misunderstanding of Florida law.

Because I saw a ton of incorrect information being thrown around as to what the law stated WRT to justification and use of deadly force.

I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.

I don't really have much of an opinion on this matter beyond that.

My focus and point then is two fold:

A - Prevent fellow CCW holders from getting a head full of misinformation and ending up in prison.

B - Show that SYG laws had nothing at all to do with this case, based on the facts thus far.
 
Why

However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.

Following somebody is not a "provocation". That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless. The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability. Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous. If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.
Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case. All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).
 
I totally believe the first sentence is possible ... People can be killed by the first blow, so never let some idiot talk you into thinking a fist is not a deadly weapon.

:rolleyes: A pretzel can be a deadly weapon. Just ask George W. Bush. It's just typically not a deadly weapon. The "idiot" is the person who thinks that just because something happens a certain way on occasion that's somehow the rule. Fist fights are not typically charged as aggravated assaults for a reason. That's because typically they don't result in death.

And the aspect of a shooting seems to be the issue for some ... Zimmerman could have just as easily stopped the threat with his bare hands or something else, and had the same final result.

And that would have been more reasonable. If they got into a scuffle and Zimmerman accidentally pulled off some "deadly ninja nerve punch" then we wouldn't be were we are in the conversation. But that's not what happened. Zimmerman unnecessarily initiated the whole thing, Trayvon got the better of him with physical force, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force. Even assuming Zimmerman is 100% telling the truth (and I think he's not) he still didn't have grounds for deadly force IMO. You think differently. Fine. Charge him and let him pray he has more of you on his jury than me.
 
Why?

If nothing at all, I am consistent with my stance against unlawfully applied force against people.

I understand that. But what Zimmerman did was lawful judging by the accounts I've heard.

[/QUOTE]This is a new angle that I am unaware of.

Everything I have seen indicated that Zimmerman got out of his car, followed Martin around a house, was told by 911 dispatch that "we don't need you to do that" then to where he and Martin started fighting, leading to the shooting."[/QUOTE]

This is not the account I've heard.

[/QUOTE]He can do whatever he wants.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[/QUOTE]However, if that can be considered a provocation, and after being told "we don't need you to do that", you can reasonably assume that to be the case, then he loses any legal justification to use deadly force under Florida law.[/QUOTE]

The operator asked him to stop and he replied by saying OK. To me, it's a non issue. Zimmerman is not breaking any law by simply walking up to Martin and asking him a question in a non threatening way and it can be heard on the call. Asking some one to state their business is still legal in all states including Florida. Shooting someone that starts attacking you is still legal even in Florida. Neither the SYG or the CCW are of any relevance in this situation . He, in my opinion will be charged with a federal hate crime for the murder of the perpetrator of this crime.
 
Because I saw a ton of incorrect information being thrown around as to what the law stated WRT to justification and use of deadly force.

I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.

I don't really have much of an opinion on this matter beyond that.

My focus and point then is two fold:

A - Prevent fellow CCW holders from getting a head full of misinformation and ending up in prison.

B - Show that SYG laws had nothing at all to do with this case, based on the facts thus far.
bingo. this is not an accident, the bias reporting, the follow-up, the misinformation. easy enough agenda to spot, not sure why people here are falling for this. Zimmerman, black guy, gang...all of it is a smoke screen. gun-control, again, and again.
 
Following somebody is not a "provocation". That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless. The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability. Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous. If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.
Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case. All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).

Florida:

Armed man approaches neighbor to complain about barking dogs.

Argument ensues.

Argument escalates until man with dogs started "threatening him (armed man) and made a movement as if he had a weapon".

Armed man shoots and kills man with dogs.

No justification, charged with second degree murder.


Former Jackman man killed in Florida during argument about barking dog

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/...lorida-during-argument-about-barking-dog.html

by erin rhoda Staff Writer

A man who grew up in Jackman was shot to death in Florida two weeks ago, and the man accused of killing him told police they were arguing about a barking dog.
Family and friends are mourning the death of Dana A. Mulhall, 52, who graduated from Forest Hills Consolidated School in 1977. His neighbor in Florida, 65-year-old Paul Miller, of Flagler Beach, faces one charge of second degree murder in the March 14 shooting.
On Monday, Mulhall’s mother, Angela Mulhall, 75, of Moose River Plantation, spoke about the loss of her son, who ran his own landscaping business in Florida and called the mayor of Flagler Beach a friend.
“I don’t know how we’ve survived going through this on a daily basis. I don’t know where we find the strength, but we always do, somewhere, somehow,” she said.
Dan Cody, police chief of the Flagler Beach Police Department, said Monday in a phone interview that Miller gave the following account of the incident: He was sitting on his porch when Mulhall came home and complained about Miller’s barking dog. Miller went inside, got his 9 mm gun and stuck it in his pocket.
Then Miller walked to the approximately three-foot-high fence between them, where they argued. Miller told police that Mulhall was threatening him and made a movement as if he had a weapon.
“Mr. Miller felt like he had a weapon from the gestures he was making, and he shot him at that time,” Cody said.
Miller fired three shots— to Mulhall’s chest and legs. When Mulhall turned to run, Miller shot him twice on the back of his body, Cody said, though he didn’t know precisely where. Mulhall died at the scene and police did not find a weapon on him
 
Unless it's just a fist fight, then it would be their fault for stopping an attack.

The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.
 
Following somebody is not a "provocation". That's what you don't seem to understand about this case. And the conversation with the dispatcher is meaningless. The Dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't have to follow Martin because dispatcher's have to be very careful regarding liability. Following a suspicious character in inherently dangerous. If you tell a dispatcher you are about to do something potentially dangerous (no matter how lawful it might be) they are always going tell you that you don't need to do that else it could be construed by a clever plaintiff's attorney after the fact that the police instructed their client to something that led to their client's injury or death.
Martin's conversation with the dispatcher is utterly irrelevant to this case. All it does is establish facts that Zimmerman himself testified to once the police showed up and sheds no light whatsoever on what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face (which is the crux of the case in terms of whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman).

This.
 
He, in my opinion will be charged with a federal hate crime for the murder of the perpetrator of this crime.

That there is now a lynch mob out for Zimmerman, I will not deny for a second, and there will be no justice done here now.

This was, in my opinion, a manslaughter type of situation.

There was an element of self defense, but with little or no legal justification.

That said, it's not Murder One, nor a federal felony "hate crime", the whole legal reasoning behind that being corrupt and wrong.
 
Asking some one to state their business is still legal in all states including Florida.

It may be legal but it is fucking stupid,, and rude.

Some bozo walks up to me, and starts demanding anything and I will tell them once to fuck off.

If they touch me I will break something.
And don't even pull that gun within arms reach. Because at that point I will be pissed.
 
The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.

I will use the words of Delroy Lindo with my response. "You don't know me, you just think you do"
 
Once that happened, he lost his justification to use deadly force, especially since he continued to follow him around as Martin tried to leave.

Well, we are finally starting to pin you down. Please explain where in the statute the mere act of following someone invalidates its application:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The qualifications of the statute are fourfold.

First, the person using force must not be engaged in an unlawful activity. According to Zimmerman's account, he followed Martin, and asked him a question. No problems there.

Second, the person using force must be in place he is lawfully permitted to be. Zimmerman was in his own gated community, using the public streets and walkways. So far, so good.

Third, the person using force must be facing an attack. Zimmerman claims that after asking Martin a question, Martin responded with an insult and then punched him in the face. Attack threshold met.

Finally, the person using force must reasonably believe he is facing the threat of great bodily harm. Eyewitness has Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. Zimmerman had a bloody nose, swollen lip, and cuts on the back of his head when police examined him. Great bodily harm is on the table.

Now, all of this is of course dependent upon what Zimmerman reported being the truth. On the surface, his story seemed credible. Further investigation by the police revealed a fact pattern consistent with what Zimmerman had told them.
 
I see a whole media inspired circus that has started up that, among other thing, will be used to discredit and try to roll back CCW and gun rights.

You got that right. More gun control is the most likely big picture outcome.

I would add that some States (AZ for example) actually hold to the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment. No permits are required to carry.
 
The point that pcosmar is making is that the world you and others seem intent on crafting is the world where one should shoot first and ask questions later because the other guy will and he'll get off without even a hearing as long as he can concoct a good enough story and is now "buddy buddy" with the cops.

That.

Non aggression means non aggression, unless you have absolutely no choice.

Zimmerman had numerous chances to break off this encounter, with absolutely no imminent risk to his life or limb and thus would have prevented anything from happening.

Hell, I complain when cops don't do that, I'm certainly not going give this guy a pass on it.

Two rules:

Mind your own business.

Keep your hands to yourself.
 
Following somebody is not a "provocation".

Following someone is Stalking. And that is a crime.
Someone being stalked, who is aware he is being stalked does have reason to be concerned, and a right to defend himself from assault.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid.
 
You got your head in the sand. Race war concerns are real. There isn't anyone here promoting it, they're just admitting the unfortunate reality

Really? You really believe that?

Millions of Americans are just going to up and kill millions of other Americans because of the color of their skin?

Stop living in fear. It's not going to happen. No one I know wants to hurt you.
 
Zimmerman is obviously an informant for the police but what kind of information is he hiding?
 
Back
Top