Black Man Kills White Teen - Jury Lets Him Walk

[Karee 4,190]

Who started a fist fight should declare who's able to make the self defense claim. Unless you are suggesting that its ok to approach someone, punch them in the face, and then shoot them if the ensuing fight starts to go their way?

I agree with you. However, there were no injuries to TM except the gunshot, and there were injuries to GZ. So that in itself kinda shows who "threw the first punch"

Edited July 19, 2013 by Karee

[slim 1,525]

The evidence of the case does not show who started the confrontation.

You don't think if evidence of who started it existed, it would be relevant?

If GZ started it, couldn't TM have been acting in self defense?

Would his beating of GZ be justified if GZ swung first?

If there was evidence it would absolutely be relevant but there isn't any so repeating "if there was evidence" isn't going to help your cause. Why you people keep trying to add evidence to a case is beyond me. Will black people be happy when the state "adds evidence" to their next court case? "Who cares what the law says. We feel like just being there is what made this happen so we're going to consider it in your trial."

The beating of GZ would NOT be justified if GZ swung first because a beating is never justified when you're defending yourself. If you're threatened, you eliminate the threat. Jumping on top of someone and repeatedly slamming their head on the ground goes past the point of defending yourself and into the realm of gaining the upper hand. Once someone defending themselves gains the upper hand, they're legally obligated to stop their escalation of force. You never have the right to use more force to defend yourself than the force causing the threat. That's why shooters must be "in fear for their own life" since they're using deadly force to counter the threat.

If someone shoves you, smacks you, punches you in the face - you have to use equal force to combat that threat.

And since we're playing hypotheticals here... if someone is chasing you (especially a "creepy ###" someone) why on earth would you get on top of that person? Wouldn't you keep it moving?

Only since 2005. Prior to 2005, it would have made all the difference. Zimmermann would not have had any self defense claim available to him because he out himself into the situation that he ended up shooting his way out of. That was once below the threshold of self defense. As it should be..

Not true. This wasn't a stand your ground case. This was simple self defense.

Once again... it's not illegal to walk up to someone and ask them questions.

[GandD 5,966]

I agree with you. However, there were no injuries to TM except the gunshot, and there were injuries to GZ. So that in itself kinda shows who "threw the first punch"

Kinda. Maybe. Just preface it. People aren't doing that.

[Karee 4,190]

Of course not. It once was against the law, however, to get yourself into a situation that you then felt you had to shoot yourself out of. Not too long ago. Here in Florida. We had fewer homicides then. Ever since they enacted this garbage of SYG, homicides have gone up in the state after steadily declining for years prior to this kill at will law being put in place.

Maybe, but SYG was not used as a defense in the TM/GZ case. I guess it has been used in other cases in Florida.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not true. This wasn't a stand your ground case. This was simple self defense.

Self defense was expanded as part of stand your ground. Try and keep up.

[Karee 4,190]

Kinda. Maybe. Just preface it. People aren't doing that.

?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe, but SYG was not used as a defense in the TM/GZ case. I guess it has been used in other cases in Florida.

SYG changed the self defense statutes.

[Karee 4,190]

SYG changed the self defense statutes.

Again, SYG was not used as a defense in the TM/GZ case. It was straight self defense.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Are you serious?

Of course the circumstances of the altercations matters.

It matters that in your story, the only reason the shooter even confronted the victim was because the victim, along with others, was in the process of DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. He was committing a crime. Against the shooter's personal property.

How doesn't it matter?

In what world does "what happened minutes before the shooting" not matter?

and TM was committing a crime against a person when he was beating in GZ's face.

They are more similar than you might think.

[slim 1,525]

Self defense was expanded as part of stand your ground. Try and keep up.

So talking to people is illegal now?

SYG changed the self defense statutes.

Jumping into a violent encounter is still not legal.

ETA - Where someone is not in immediate danger of death.

Edited July 19, 2013 by slim

[GandD 5,966]

?

What murder?

There was a self defense killing (or two) but there were no murders.

This doesn't suggest any possibility that TM was trying to defend himself. That's just him, but some of the others completely KNOW what happened.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, SYG was not used as a defense in the TM/GZ case. It was straight self defense.

Zimmermann did not seek immunity under stand your ground but the statute is broader than that. It changed the self defense statute and thus the jury instruction template in cases where the defendant claims self defense. Prio to SYG, the jury would have gotten a diferent set of instruuction where Zimmermann would not have been afforded the self defense justification.

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-07-17/news/fl-dgcol-zimmerman-trayvon-oped0717-20130717_1_zimmerman-jury-ground-law-george-zimmerman

Stand Your Ground changed that. It is therefore incorrect to say that the Zimmermann verdict had noting to do with Stand Your Ground.

[slim 1,525]

This doesn't suggest any possibility that TM was trying to defend himself. That's just him, but some of the others completely KNOW what happened.

I think it's completely possible that it could've happened. GZ could've walked right up on TM, shoved him around a little, and TM started whooping GZ's backside.

But the facts of the case are such that there's no evidence that it did. Trying to convict someone based on what might have happened is something so horrible to suggest that I'm appalled modern Americans would even consider it. Especially black Americans. Why on earth would anyone want to grant the state the power to convict people based on "what might have happened?"

"You might have bought some crack." Who cares that you didn't. Who cares that you didn't have any crack on you at the time of your arrest. As long as it might have happened... you can be convicted.

What you folks are asking for here - and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't even know you're doing it - is you're asking for our right to be innocent until proven guilty to be taken away whenever there's a suspicion of a crime.

Please, please, PLEEEEEEEASE stop asking for that to happen. Please wake up to the fact that this case, like most of the others the media glorifies, is about nothing more than decreasing our individual rights and increasing the power of the state. And while we're so focused on this, what other huge cases are being ignored?

Connect the dots, folks.

Zimmermann did not seek immunity under stand your ground but the statute is broader than that. It changed the self defense statute and thus the jury instruction template in cases where the defendant claims self defense. Prio to SYG, the jury would have gotten a diferent set of instruuction where Zimmermann would not have been afforded the self defense justification.

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-07-17/news/fl-dgcol-zimmerman-trayvon-oped0717-20130717_1_zimmerman-jury-ground-law-george-zimmerman

Stand Your Ground changed that. It is therefore incorrect to say that the Zimmermann verdict had noting to do with Stand Your Ground.

How could Zimmerman retreat with Martin on top of him?

[Karee 4,190]

I think it's completely possible that it could've happened. GZ could've walked right up on TM, shoved him around a little, and TM started whooping GZ's backside.

But the facts of the case are such that there's no evidence that it did. Trying to convict someone based on what might have happened is something so horrible to suggest that I'm appalled modern Americans would even consider it. Especially black Americans. Why on earth would anyone want to grant the state the power to convict people based on "what might have happened?"

"You might have bought some crack." Who cares that you didn't. Who cares that you didn't have any crack on you at the time of your arrest. As long as it might have happened... you can be convicted.

What you folks are asking for here - and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't even know you're doing it - is you're asking for our right to be innocent until proven guilty to be taken away whenever there's a suspicion of a crime.

Please, please, PLEEEEEEEASE stop asking for that to happen. Please wake up to the fact that this case, like most of the others the media glorifies, is about nothing more than decreasing our individual rights and increasing the power of the state. And while we're so focused on this, what other huge cases are being ignored?

Connect the dots, folks.

How could Zimmerman retreat with Martin on top of him?

+1000

[GandD 5,966]

Not suggesting that GZ should have been found guilty of murder. Def no evidence to support that. You're right, we must go on the evidence. Just irks me when people talking about TM jumping poor TM and TM being left with no other option than to shoot his way out. We simply do not know this. We can make a strong assumption based on evidence that GZ was losing and then pulled the trigger. That doesn't tell me he was def initially jumped by TM.

Edited July 19, 2013 by GandD