Trayvon Martin

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

I can state -- unequivocally, even -- that I'm biased and faulty in the all ways that humans can be. I have opinions and I gave them.

For once we can agree! I am biased to a fault. I'm always trying to understand the truth or get to the bottom of it.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

It doesn't matter what the killer thought or if the killer was afraid.

The law isn't fearing death or serious bodily harm, it's about actually being at risk of death or serious bodily harm.

Otherwise every coward would have a license to kill just about everyone they fear in social situations.

However unless their is an unknown witness or evidence(such as identifying the screaming voice as TM) that hasn't been made public, it will be impossible to prove that he was not at risk.

Loophole in the law. And if the law says something it should be upheld even if it is obvious that Zimmerman murdered another man, if he did it legally, he should go free.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It doesn't matter what the killer thought or if the killer was afraid.

The law isn't fearing death or serious bodily harm, it's about actually being at risk of death or serious bodily harm.

....

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) 
The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not 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, unless:

(a) 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 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.

I'm not sure the law actually agrees with you. I've tried to bold the parts that probably will be weighed most heavily in arriving at a conclusion.

Edited to note that I meant to bold the subsection 1 of 776.012 rather than subsection 3 of 776.013 but got lost in my own messy post.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It doesn't matter what the killer thought or if the killer was afraid.

The law isn't fearing death or serious bodily harm, it's about actually being at risk of death or serious bodily harm.

Otherwise every coward would have a license to kill just about everyone they fear in social situations.

However unless their is an unknown witness or evidence(such as identifying the screaming voice as TM) that hasn't been made public, it will be impossible to prove that he was not at risk.

Loophole in the law. And if the law says something it should be upheld even if it is obvious that Zimmerman murdered another man, if he did it legally, he should go free.

But if one is actually at risk (as in imminent danger), would it not be natural that he fear for his life and, therefore, act out of that fear? A definition of "fear" is that it's a powerful and primitive biochemical and emotional response to an expectation of becoming a victim of something harmful or dangerous. Therefore, if a genuine risk is perceived, it's natural that fear would result.
Fear, incidentally, is a great preserver of life.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But if one is actually at risk (as in imminent danger), would it not be natural that he fear for his life and, therefore, act out of that fear? A definition of "fear" is that it's a powerful and primitive biochemical and emotional response to an expectation of becoming a victim of something harmful or dangerous. Therefore, if a genuine risk is perceived, it's natural that fear would result.
Fear, incidentally, is a great preserver of life.

Boxcar

sure

fear is natural and great.

but anyone can have irrational fears. Fear is not a justification to do anything.

The person has to have a "reasonable" fear.
In other words the fear must be based in the facts of the matter. The prosecution has to prove such fear was "unreasonable" or irrational.

[bigmack]

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

VaVa Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...unethical.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

sure

fear is natural and great.

but anyone can have irrational fears. Fear is not a justification to do anything.

The person has to have a "reasonable" fear.
In other words the fear must be based in the facts of the matter. The prosecution has to prove such fear was "unreasonable" or irrational.

Go back and read 776.013, which John posted. The law presumes that if person fears for his life or great bodily harm that such fear is rational and reasonable.

Even though Martin was followed by Zimm for awhile, I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize Martin's fear to rising to the level of being in "imminent danger", since Zimm was still quite a distance away. And presumably, Zimm made no overt threat of harm to Martin either, such as brandishing his weapon. Therefore, if Martin initiated the physical assault, I don't believe it would be justifiable in his case because he chose to not continue to escape from Zimm. We know he managed to get out of Zimm's sight -- that visual contact was lost to both of them for a period of time -- so, why didn't the kid take advantage of that if he truly feared for his life? It seems to me, Martin doesn't meet the threshold required for "stand your ground", since he had that avenue of escape open to him but chose to not continue in it.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Go back and read 776.013, which John posted. The law presumes that if person fears for his life or great bodily harm that such fear is rational and reasonable.

Even though Martin was followed by Zimm for awhile, I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize Martin's fear to rising to the level of being in "imminent danger", since Zimm was still quite a distance away. And presumably, Zimm made no overt threat of harm to Martin either, such as brandishing his weapon. Therefore, if Martin initiated the physical assault, I don't believe it would be justifiable in his case because he chose to not continue to escape from Zimm. We know he managed to get out of Zimm's sight -- that visual contact was lost to both of them for a period of time -- so, why didn't the kid take advantage of that if he truly feared for his life? It seems to me, Martin doesn't meet the threshold required for "stand your ground", since he had that avenue of escape open to him but chose to not continue in it.

Boxcar

Only Zimmerman's fear matters here. All that is required is that Zimmerman present a story of what happened where such a fear of serious injury or death was reasonable. His word against nobody.

The prosecution will have to disprove that story to get a conviction (which i think would be manslaughter).

[DRIVEWAY]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

VaVa Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...unethical.html

He doesn't mince his words.
Nothing but Politics.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Only Zimmerman's fear matters here. All that is required is that Zimmerman present a story of what happened where such a fear of serious injury or death was reasonable. His word against nobody.

The prosecution will have to disprove that story to get a conviction (which i think would be manslaughter).

Good. So, we agree on that and can set aside the absurd notion that has been offered here that Martin was simply just standing his ground, and that somehow his right to do had been violated by Zimm.

But what you have said is pretty much on the mark. In the apparent absence of witnesses to how visual contact was reestablished and how that subsequently led to physical contact, I don't see how the prosecution has very much to go on based on what little we do know. (It's Zimm's word against whose exactly?) Of course, there are other elements to factor into this case, such as the range of the shooting, extent of Zimm's wounds, etc., so we'll just have to wait to see how all the evidence shakes out. There is a lot we still don't know.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactiv...robable-cause/

This should make for interesting reading. I haven't tackled it yet.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

VaVa Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...unethical.html

Thanks for posting that.

I hope Boxcar got to see in that video that Zim is nowhere near overweight, let alone obese...seems Boxcar is easily sucked in by the media, which makes one wonder how else his opinion has been shaped by such influence.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...
This should make for interesting reading. I haven't tackled it yet.

Boxcar

Shouldn't take long to tackle because it barely registers on the interesting-o-meter.

He profiled Martin. He used profanity twice in describing his dismay at evasive criminals. Police told him not to follow and to wait for them (haven't heard this part of the call). Fight ensues. Martin is shot. Police confirm the casing was from Zimmerman's weapon and the ME determines that Martin died from a gunshot wound.

Saved you forty seconds wading through page 1.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You want super interesting documents:

http://twitter.com/#!/MiamiHerald/st.../photo/1/large

Details on the composition of his first prison bowel movement at 11.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Thanks for posting that.

I hope Boxcar got to see in that video that Zim is nowhere near overweight, let alone obese...seems Boxcar is easily sucked in by the media, which makes one wonder how else his opinion has been shaped by such influence.

You know, PA, getting up to speed a little late is better than never getting out of reverse, as has been the case with many in this thread. When this case first caught my attention, I thought a 12-year old had been shot by all the pics of Martin that flooded the web. Then I dug I dug deeper and learned differently.

So, I hope you can understand that even the great Boxcar can blow something every now and then. (But even then....my accuracy hit rate still surpasses El Rushbo's.) And besides, I never said I was perfect. Around here all that is required is to be better than most, and that has been made pretty easy for me on this forum.

Boxcar