Regardless, it appears Zimmerman put himself in harms way if it did go down as he claims. Just the same, the law stands as it is. there are evil people everywhere who will use the law to their advantage.
I'm, believing it likely Zimmerman should go to jail, but if his account is true. That changes things, even if he was a provoker. We will have to wait to see if the grand jury thinks the case should move forward. If not, there is civil suits available too.
I am living in a bizarro world.. he probably provoked him, disobeyed the 9/11 caller, and shot a kid that was doing nothing. mmk..
So if he was assualted ...it never would have happened (the assault or the killing) if he hadn't followed him!
yes we need more people on the streets with guns
Joe is one of the few honest Republicans that has no problem calling them out and telling it like it is. God bless.
Zimmerman should have never gotten out of his vehicle. The Police Chief's days are numbered.
You bring up an interesting scenario. You are fighting with someone and you have a gun. You don't know if the "hillbilly" will grab your gun and shoot you with it.
At least one voice expert thinks Zimmerman said "punks" and not "koons" in the recorded call.
Many in the media speculated that the Toulouse shooter was a "right-wing" Neo Nazi.
We know differently now.
But no threads on that subject.
voice expert? You don't need to be an expert to listen to a recording and tell what it says.
You hear what you want to hear, I suppose.
Listen to it again (lol @ how it says "explicit" on this website)
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/orig...xplicit/vGbyc/
Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote
Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1prTYHbB6
The tragic story of Trayvon Martin's death in Sanford, Florida has ignited a great deal of passion and concern regarding the cir stances of his death and the defense applied by the attacker, George Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon Martin unnecessarily lost his life is troubling and an investigation into the surrounding cir stances is certainly warranted.
First of all I'd like to extend my condolences to the Martin family.
I have been in the funeral services profession for over 40 years; I've walked with families through many tragic cir stances and I know how difficult it is.
Related Stories
Neighborhood watch leader may have uttered racial slur before shooting
Florida teen killed by neighborhood watch captain talked to girlfriend before shooting, lawyer says
Family: Florida man didn't kill black teen in self-defense
I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.
During the debate concerning this incident, some have brought into question the "Stand Your Ground" law, more commonly referred to as the "castle doctrine," which has been used by the attacker to pardon his actions.
As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.
When the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" legislation passed in 2005, the catalytic event that brought the issue to the attention of the Florida Legislature was the looting of property in the aftermath of hurricanes.
Specifically, there was a situation in the panhandle of Florida where a citizen moved an RV onto his property, to protect the remains of his home from being looted. One evening, a perpetrator broke into the RV and attacked the property owner. The property owner, acting in self-defense in his home, shot and killed the perpetrator.
It was months before the property owner knew if he would be charged with a crime because of the lack of concrete definition in the statutes regarding self-defense and a perceived duty to retreat by the potential victim.
Until 2005, the castle doctrine had never been canonized into Florida law, but had been used with differing definition and application to the concept of self-defense. The focus of the law was to provide clear definition to acts of self-defense.
The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be. The law also protects property owners and their homeowner's insurance from being wrongfully sued by perpetrators who claim to be harmed while committing a crime.
The castle doctrine as passed, clarified that individuals are lawfully able to defend themselves when attacked and there is no duty to retreat when an individual is attacked on their property. Since the passage of this law in Florida, 26 other states have implemented similar statues.
Additionally, the American Legislative Exchange Council used the Florida version of the castle doctrine as model legislation for other states.
Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.
The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.
Media stories sharing the transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.
Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.
I have great sympathy for the family of Trayvon Martin and am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. Awaiting the convening of the grand jury, I trust that justice will be served and healing will begin for all of those affected.
Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005. He is the principal owner and vice president of Hiers-Baxley Funeral Services.
~~~Will we have to wait till April to see this man arrested?
Does anyone else think that the idea that I could provoke someone then shoot them because I fear for my life, is bonkers? Just straight up ing nutso?
I don't... But that's probably why I shouldn't have provoked him in the first place.
I concur.
Probably not a good idea, but doesn't automatically mean you hate "hillbillies".
No, but I just don't think the "Stand your Ground"/don't have to retrea anywhere doctrine shouldn't apply to you if you were the one starting an argument. I know there would be shades of grey in those decisions, but it shouldn't be a "get out of jail free" card for being an asshole.
Kinda dallies with premediation, doesnt it?
Speaking of race, what's going to happen when the GOP candidates respond when they are (perhaps inevitably) asked about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida?
Their party has very few African-American adherents and is prone to claiming that all cases like this are hoaxes trumped up by liberals. To make matters more complicated, the killer is a Hispanic and the GOP has been openly hostile to Latinos throughout this cycle, right through Santorum's dictum last weekend that Puerto Ricans learn English before they can qualify for statehood. Now that Michael Steele has abdicated, it would be no surprise if the GOP candidates outsourced the question to Herman Cain if he can be dragged out of whatever boudoir he's in.
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/201...ody.html?imw=Y
Speaking of race, what's going to happen when the GOP candidates respond when they are (perhaps inevitably) asked about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida?
Their party has very few African-American adherents and is prone to claiming that all cases like this are hoaxes trumped up by liberals. To make matters more complicated, the killer is a Hispanic and the GOP has been openly hostile to Latinos throughout this cycle, right through Santorum's dictum last weekend that Puerto Ricans learn English before they can qualify for statehood. Now that Michael Steele has abdicated, it would be no surprise if the GOP candidates outsourced the question to Herman Cain if he can be dragged out of whatever boudoir he's in.
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/201...ody.html?imw=Y
The article I read just before your posts claims the law doesn't cover provoked situations like this. I wonder how the courts will see it.
For the umpteenth time, I will say I believe all laws need a "Purpose" and "Scope" attached to them, so the black and what of the law cannot be construed for other situations. The law may not have been designed to protect the provoker, but it may be an unintended consequence.
Damn...
Why did you have to bring that up?
Now I'm thinking like a conspiracy theorist, that some democrat operative made this happen to get Florida.
From what I understand, under English common law you would be correct - you couldn't provoke and then claim self-defense. But the whole "clean hands" idea has been done away with by state legislatures in Florida and elsewhere.
He seemed to be referring to "Castle Doctrine" though, and not "Stand Your Ground" which (by my very quick perusal) seems to say you are allowed to defend yourself not just on your property but anywhere.
I think that's easier said than done... else you'd have every law reading like Cell Phone contracts and then the world of lawyering would become as byzantine as banking is.
I disagree.
I believe a purpose and scope would reduce the litigation, as it says what the law is intended to apply to, and has limitations in the scope.
I heard the whole tape today in full and was not predisposed to judge one way or the other.
I have to say, I was struck by the long conversation between the dispatcher and the shooter. The dispatcher clearly said "we don't NEED you to follow him". She didn't say DON'T follow him. They then started talking about where he should meet the policeman when he got there and the dispatcher suggested they meet at the mailboxes. From the guys heavy breathing it seemed pretty clear he was still following the kid so he "didn't get away" before the police got there. He then told the dispatcher to just have the policeman call him when he got there and he would tell him where he was and the dispatcher said OK...It seemed almost like an acceptance and approval that he was following the kid. What happened after that is anyones guess at this point.
I certainly don't approve of the shooters behavior but it doesn't seem as clear cut as what I had been led to believe from reports.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
