Florida's aggressor statute appears to disagree with your interpretation. Moreover, you misunderstand my point - or rather, you assume that Z chasing T was unlawful. That's not clear to me. I mean, if T noticed Z watching/following him, started walking fast/running away, and Z started chasing him, exactly what law would Z have broken? Taken a step further, T gets tired, stops, Z catches up to him, words are exchanged - at that point, have any laws been broken? Doesn't it all turn on who struck first? And unfortunately, the only living witness to that is Z, at least as far as I'm aware. I personally believe Z is responsible for the whole altercation, and likely took the first swing, and I think most other people do as well, but that doesn't really matter. The Stand Your Ground law, combined with Florida's aggressor statute and the lack of eyewitnesses at critical times in the altercation, really make this a mess (as far as establishing to the legally required level of proof what happened - apart from that it's a tragedy and a travesty).Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, under the scenario presented, it would likely come out as self defense. If Z chased T and then T attacted, such that Z thought he was in danger, the self defense doctrine would apply. This is exactly why I think that a lot of the outrage is missplaced. The travesty is that the issue was not INVESTIGATED and that Z was not ARRESTED. It could theoretically turn out that he is not convicted. And if so, I would be fine with that. But he should still be put through the process.
This is exactly right. The lack of an investigation, combined with the (absurd, in my opinion) Stand Your Ground law could very well lead to an aquittal (or even no charged being filed).
To follow up, the key (well, one of them) is whether Zimmerman was acting unlawfully - if he was, the defense is unavailable.
Whew. Thanks for correcting that ! For a minute I thought I must have been wrong my whole crim law class.
That's right folks you can't chase somebody down and then claim self defense when they whoop your ass... Well you can claim it - but it probably will not fly.
Anonymous wrote:Not sure if anyone's mentioned it but the killer looks Hispanic.
This is another pic of Zimmerman. Looks white to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, under the scenario presented, it would likely come out as self defense. If Z chased T and then T attacted, such that Z thought he was in danger, the self defense doctrine would apply. This is exactly why I think that a lot of the outrage is missplaced. The travesty is that the issue was not INVESTIGATED and that Z was not ARRESTED. It could theoretically turn out that he is not convicted. And if so, I would be fine with that. But he should still be put through the process.
This is exactly right. The lack of an investigation, combined with the (absurd, in my opinion) Stand Your Ground law could very well lead to an aquittal (or even no charged being filed).
To follow up, the key (well, one of them) is whether Zimmerman was acting unlawfully - if he was, the defense is unavailable.
Anonymous wrote:Not sure if anyone's mentioned it but the killer looks Hispanic.
Anonymous wrote:Are those gold teeth?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?
Which is it? You're guessing, or it's reality?
jesus, look at the FBI crime statistics for violent crime in Florida and get back to me. it sucks, but burying your head in the sand will not help.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?
Which is it? You're guessing, or it's reality?
jesus, look at the FBI crime statistics for violent crime in Florida and get back to me. it sucks, but burying your head in the sand will not help.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?
Which is it? You're guessing, or it's reality?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The governor had the state attorney step down and appointed an independent state attorney. So governor felt that the SA was bias and failing to perform his duties in this case. Wow.
Wow is right... wow to where youre getting your news or how you interpret the news.
On Thursday, Seminole County State Attorney Norman R. Wolfinger recused himself from the case, sending a letter to Scott requesting that another prosecutor be assigned. “In the interest of the public safety of the citizens of Seminole County and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would respectfully request the executive assignment of another state attorney for the investigation and any prosecution arising from the circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon B. Martin,” Wolfinger said in a statement.
And why do you think the state attorney waited until after meeting with the governor that he realized there might be a conflict of interest. He did not realize there was a conflict before He was not worried about the appearance of impropriety until well after meeting with the governor. You can dress it up any way you want. The man was waiting to convene a grand jury three weeks from now.