Trayvon Martin

[81]

Like walk home from the store?

[PJ_Soul]

Like walk home from the store?

I am loving the new emoticons!

[g under p]

The proscution better have a STRONG case cause self defense cases are the toughfest to win a guilty verdict. Why, because the victim who cannot speak is put on trial and i hope the parents on both sides can handle it all.

Peace

[marcos]

The proscution better have a STRONG case cause self defense cases are the toughfest to win a guilty verdict. Why, because the victim who cannot speak is put on trial and i hope the parents on both sides can handle it all.

Peace

I agree that it may prove difficult for the prosecution but only because of the intense media coverage which many prosecuting offices tend to have difficulty in high media coverage cases. And perhaps that is more of a jury issue than actually their fault?

But in real everyday life the prosecution has it easiest. They usually already have the police and judges on their side at the beginning of the proceeding. Some police have professional expertise in embellishment as trained by heartless prosecutor.

This case will be further complicated by the race issue and how long it took for the prosecution and police to pretend they care about the victim.

[polaris_x]

how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.

because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...

[g under p]

how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.

because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...

Unfortunately you are right...you don't have to be on your property, you can be anywhere and claim self defense with this *Stand Your Ground* law

Peace

[mikepegg44]

how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.

because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...

this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?

If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.

[JonnyPistachio]

how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.

because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...

this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?

If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.

That is where it gets sketchy. The law says you may kill someone dead even if you feel great bodily harm is coming your way. Its such a subjective thing that i dont know how you prove this... What is great bodily harm? I may think great bodily harm is getting my eye poked. That shit hurts. Or maybe getting your nose broken is great bodily harm? (by the way, how long does it take a broken nose to heal back to 100% normal?)

You can also kill someone dead to prevent a forcible felony. Thats a little more clear cut I suppose.

[mikepegg44]

because the stand your ground law isn't only applicable to being at home ... you can pretty much flat out murder someone if you can prove your life was at risked ... this is usually done because the other person is dead ...

this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?

If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.

That is where it gets sketchy. The law says you may kill someone dead even if you feel great bodily harm is coming your way. Its such a subjective thing that i dont know how you prove this... What is great bodily harm? I may think great bodily harm is getting my eye poked. That shit hurts. Or maybe getting your nose broken is great bodily harm? (by the way, how long does it take a broken nose to heal back to 100% normal?)

You can also kill someone dead to prevent a forcible felony. Thats a little more clear cut I suppose.

yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.

[polaris_x]

this doesn't really seem to be an argument against the law. Aren't you saying you can kill someone if you can prove your life was in danger?

If your life is in danger, deadly force is acceptable IMO.

sure ... if you are legitimately in danger and retreat is not possible ... but that's not what this law allows for ... this law says you don't have to retreat and you can shoot it out ... this law basically allows me to kill anyone i want as long as there are no witnesses that can prove "my" side of the story ... "justifiable" homicides tripled since the law went into effect in a state that had no previous significant problem with homicides ...

[polaris_x]

yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.

no ... the law is horrible beyond belief ... there are already laws in place that protect a person who's life is in danger ... this law promotes gun violence ... because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened ... which means death ... and guns are the best way to kill people ...

edit: mandatory arrest and grand jury does nothing ... if the only other witness to an incident is dead ... it's the killer's version of the story that stands ...

[mikepegg44]

yeah, what they need to do if they want to keep this law in place is update it to include MANDATORY arrest and grand jury. Seems to me a human life is worth at least that...Lay the facts out to a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like that would have staved off quite the firestorm...usually I get a kick out of the media going nuts like this, but this is just so sad I cannot even enjoy the irresponsibility of it all.

no ... the law is horrible beyond belief ... there are already laws in place that protect a person who's life is in danger ... this law promotes gun violence ... because ultimately this law is about making sure no one knows the truth of what happened ... which means death ... and guns are the best way to kill people ...

edit: mandatory arrest and grand jury does nothing ... if the only other witness to an incident is dead ... it's the killer's version of the story that stands ...

first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.

Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?

as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.

[polaris_x]

first off that is a horrible overstatement of the law. It isn't horrible beyond belief...but it is far from perfect. In order for it to promote gun violence it would say something like you are required to fire on someone. You must carry a gun and use it...that law would promote gun violence. this promotes self defense, but the vagueness does allow it to go too far.

Anyone have any stats on how many people were cleared or never charged because of this law?

as far as what mandatory arrest and grand jury would do...we shall see...Zimmerman appears to be going to trial and it looks like they had evidence beyond his testimony, which would kind of negate the idea that the only version of the story is that of the person claiming self defense.

no ... it IS horrible ... "justifiable" homicides TRIPLED since the law was put in place ... and it does promote gun violence because all one has to do is show that their well being was at risk and the only way to ensure that is to make sure the other person is dead ...

there are already laws in place to protect people who defend themselves ... part of the reasoning the police force let zimmerman go was because of this law ...

this law was lobbied for by the NRA ... why do you think they wanted it?

[polaris_x]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le2400435/

Bad laws make shooting death of Trayvon Martin as pre-ordained as a Greek tragedy
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 11:07PM EDT

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is an invitation to violent disaster. It is a radical broadening of the law of self-defence that made the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black teen walking through a gated community in which he was a guest, seem nearly as preordained as any Greek tragedy.

And on that human tragedy, the death of a teen, is built a social disaster – the appearance of life being cheap, black life especially, and of impunity for those who kill because they insisted on standing their ground. Or who claimed that’s what they did.
More related to this story

The principle that a person’s home is a castle, and entitled to a deadly defence, has been by and large extended into the streets, in Florida and a score of other states. Stand Your Ground laws create something close to a presumption that an assailant intends to use deadly force, and that it is therefore reasonable use deadly force in return. Killing in self-defence no longer needs to be necessary to pass legal muster – a radical departure.

Florida’s numbers of justifiable homicide cases have nearly tripled since the 2005 law came in . Before the law, there were 12 a year, on average; and now there are 33. In Texas and Georgia, justifiable homicide cases have nearly doubled since those states passed Stand Your Ground laws. Most states with such laws have experienced large jumps in justifiable homicide cases, even as homicide rates have stayed flat.

Here is George Zimmerman, founder of his community’s Neighbourhood Watch. He is armed and in his vehicle, keeping an eye out for trouble. This is already a disaster in the making, rooted in Floridians’ right to carry a concealed handgun, a right most law-abiding societies, including Canada and the United Kingdom, don’t recognize.

A young man, Mr. Martin, enters the scene, carrying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. Mr. Zimmerman follows, phones the police, who tell him not to follow the young man. An altercation ensues, the young man is shot dead and local police don’t charge Mr. Zimmerman. In these circumstances, where the facts are not publicly known, it is reasonable to infer that the law gives immunity to those who act from suspicion and fear.

No wonder the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence warns visitors not to argue with Floridians. “No retreat” gives a man with a gun the right to the last word.

[JonnyPistachio]

I just listened to the 911 call again. I think Zimmerman is in trouble:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogal ... von-Martin

This version doesnt seem edited ^^^
He says he was near the clubhouse in the middle of the call. Then a few minutes later, Martin was dead. I saw the overhead map of the location of the clubhouse and the spot where Treyvon was killed. I think it will be pretty easy to prove that Zimmerman pursued Treyvon after that call because of the distance to where the crime was committed versus where he claimed he originally was....and the fact that Zimmerman agreed to meet police by the clubhouse and then suddenly recanted, saying they should call him when they arrive and he'd tell them where he was going to be. He's so very fucked.