**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[moo]

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.

In that case The stand your ground law applies to trayvon, not zimmerman.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

Yep.

But it could be argued that Police should be held to a higher standard than George, as they are trained and operating with special powers. Even here on this board, no one really questions a Police involved shooting where the Cop was on the ground getting beat on.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

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

Some bozo walk 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.

I agree with half of what you say and that is your right, tell me to fuck off. If I touch you, beat my ass. If I pull a gun, take it from me and pistol whip my ass. What you consider stupid and rude, I consider people actually giving a shit about the community and not living scared, but living prepared and smart.

 

[moo]

I agree with half of what you say and that is your right, tell me to fuck off. If I touch you, beat my ass. If I pull a gun, take it from me and pistol whip my ass. What you consider stupid and rude, I consider people actually giving a shit about the community and not living scared, but living prepared and smart.

trayvon was shot & killed but you want to be pistol whipped. LMAO!

 

[jmdrake]

Why not involuntary manslaughter ?
That's what my past co-worker example received.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

I think it's hard to argue that when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon that he didn't intend to kill him.

Voluntary Manslaughter

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

 

[RonPaulMall]

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.

And this is essentially what his case is all about. The media, and a large segment of America, think Zimmerman acted "stupid" and "rudely" and therefore, he should go to jail. Doesn't matter there is no law against what he did. He violated the sensibilities of the masses, and therefore needs to be punished. This is the very definition of an authoritarian collectivist judicial system. Go against the will of the state in thought, word, or deed, and you are a criminal.

And btw, if the facts are what they appear to be, had Martin followed your lead and simply told Zimmerman to fuck off, he'd still be alive today.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Let's assume the worst and that Martin committed a crime.

Was he trying to leave the area where Zimmerman was?


Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html



Actually, it looks to me like Zimmerman may be the one who committed the original felony, 'aggravated stalking' meaning stalking while carrying a deadly weapon.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.08.html

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.

 

[RonPaulMall]

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.

So if a Police Officer follows somebody on a public street, and then "confronts" them by asking them what they are doing, your position is the person being asked has the right to start beating the living shit out of the officer, and then if the officer shoots him the officer has no self defense claim? I hate the cops more than anybody, but that is just insane. Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops. The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off. They don't have the right to attack them. If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.

 

[pcosmar]

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.

Big problem there.
Stalking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

http://www.aware.org/stalking/stalkgeninfo.shtml

Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.

The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yep.

But it could be argued that Police should be held to a higher standard than George, as they are trained and operating with special powers. Even here on this board, no one really questions a Police involved shooting where the Cop was on the ground getting beat on.

You're right, and that's why they have to be held to the higher standard because it is assumed that will be part of their job. Thus they get an enormous amount of power placed in their hands and should always be held accountable when it's abused.

And why just having a CCW does not make you a "free lance" cop.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So if a Police Officer follows somebody on a public street, and then "confronts" them by asking them what they are doing, your position is the person being asked has the right to start beating the living shit out of the officer, and then if the officer shoots him the officer has no self defense claim? I hate the cops more than anybody, but that is just insane. Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops. The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off. They don't have the right to attack them. If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.

I just answered that.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

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.

But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete. That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

trayvon was shot & killed but you want to be pistol whipped. LMAO!

To any man I know, a pistol whipping is far worse than a gun shot regardless the outcome.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And this is essentially what his case is all about. The media, and a large segment of America, think Zimmerman acted "stupid" and "rudely" and therefore, he should go to jail. Doesn't matter there is no law against what he did. He violated the sensibilities of the masses, and therefore needs to be punished. This is the very definition of an authoritarian collectivist judicial system. Go against the will of the state in thought, word, or deed, and you are a criminal.

And btw, if the facts are what they appear to be, had Martin followed your lead and simply told Zimmerman to fuck off, he'd still be alive today.

No, nothing happened at all to him until this media/government circus sprang up, (which I remain convinced was pre-meditated and well planned and not accidental).

Which is a risk you take when you carry a firearm, that if you do have shoot someone, it may very well end up in a media/government lynch mob, if there is political hay to made or, god forbid, you just shot the relative of a High Party Official.

All along my intent has been to do nothing but give what my best considered opinion is on the CCW law in this case, to prevent people from acting rashly on bad information and ending up in prison.

 

[Anti Federalist]

But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete. That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.

Again, I haven't seen that.

IF Martin came back, AFTER the call, AFTER Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" and then proceeded to beat him down, then yes, he was justified.

 

[moo]

But didn't he do that when he said OK? His original intent was non aggression when he approached and asked his question. He called 911 before the encounter and the conversation between him and Martin plays out, at that point Martin ran and the operator said stop following and he did. Then Martin came back and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete. That is the point when Zimmerman was completely justified to shoot.

zimmerman did not stop following him. he LIED. you can hear it in his voice he was still looking for him.

 

[Danke]

Everybody has the perfect right to follow a stranger and ask them a question, even cops. The stranger has the perfect right to tell them to buzz off. They don't have the right to attack them. If they do, the questioner has the right to respond with deadly force.

Seems pretty simple.

 

[pcosmar]

Again, I haven't seen that.

IF Martin came back, AFTER the call, AFTER Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" and then proceeded to beat him down, then yes, he was justified.

I think folks are just making shit up at this point.

 

[jmdrake]

I will use the words of Delroy Lindo with my response. "You don't know me, you just think you do"

I never claimed to "know you". What you don't know is the ideological corner you are painting yourself into. Pcosmar's point, that you failed to address, is that if the result of Zimmerman not even being arrested, charged, or even taken to the station for questioning is somehow supposedly "correct" then the Trayvon's of the world should be armed with guns instead of with their fists and their skittles and be prepared to shoot first. Think this all the way through. There is decent evidence that Zimmerman put a hand on Trayvon. (Trayvon's earpiece allegedly fell off). Would that have been reason for Trayvon to shoot Zimmerman, especially if he had perceived correctly that Zimmerman had a gun? If the self defense doctrine is cheapened too much then it won't mean anything.

 

[Danke]

I think folks are just making shit up at this point.

:spit-take: