Reply to Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Every person who has actually WRITTEN the law is coming out against their so-called "interpretation." [/quote]

You mean some hill-jack, crypto-fascist gun-loving redneck state representative from Florida wrote a law defending the rights of gun owners, and didn't understand its full implications?  Well, pardon me if I don't fall out of my chair in surprise.

It seems like there are several important issues here.  First, the law states that the defense isn't available if the person claiming it acted illegally.  So, was Zimmerman acting illegally?  (The failure to follow the instructions of the 911 operator, accordign to law enforcement sources, is not illegal.)  Is following someone ilegal?  Is accosting him and/or chasing he when he runs away illegal, and sufficient to strip the defense?  I have no idea (but then again, neither do all the posters who claim that there is no way in hell that the defense applies).  Are there any Florida cases supporting the notion that self-defense/stand your ground can't apply if someone initiates an encounter (which Zimmerman clearly did) but doesnt't initiate the physical altercation (throw the first punch, or something close to it)?

Second, are there any witnesses to the start of the physical altercation?  Not "it just doesn't make sense that XYZ happened" theories - those aren't facts - actual witnesses.  Because if there aren't, and it's just Zimmerman's word with nothing to contradict it (no witnesses, no physical evidence, etc.), the case won't even make it to a jury.   Can Trayvon's girlfriend, from what she heard over the phone, testify as to what happened?  Since her statement came almost a month after the incident, is it credible?  (In this respect, the shitty job the cops did will buttress her credibility.)

Third, can it be established that the cries for help heard on the 911 call came from Trayvon?  If so, it goes a long way to attacking Zimmerman's story.  But what if it was Zimmerman cryign for help as Trayvon was (understandably) kicking his ass?  Seems far-fetched, but I thought I read a report to that effect.  That would put a very different spin on things.

Overall point being, there are lots of possible outcomes here, and the combination of a shitty law, no eyewitnesses, and an appalling initial investigation could lead to Zimmerman getting off.  It wouldn't be right, but it might be legally correct.  The notion that this is a clear-cut case, though, is really misplaced.   [/quote]

Overall I like your points, but why is the law shitty?  If you read the law, the only thing it does is remove a duty to retreat when faced with a threat-- and why should I have to always run away if Im faced with an aggressor? (The state of maryland does not even have a castle doctrine, so in my own home, I have to first run away from an intruder before Im allowed to defend myself from them.)  Further, it is not an automatic approval for use of deadly force.  Applied incorrectly or misunderstood, we see what happens.  The Florida law does have a clause regarding use of retaliatory deadly force by an aggressor (not saying that this applies here though)

776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is[b] not[/b] available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, [b]unless:
[/b]
    (a)?[b]Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger[/b] other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics