News Are 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Justified in Cases Like Trayvon Martin's Death?

[mheslep]

Zimmerman was carrying a gun and chasing Martin.

To follow is is not the same thing as to "chase" or to "charge". Do you have some new eye witness information saying Z "chased" M? Also I know of no source saying Z ever drew the weapon prior to the shooting.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To follow is is not the same thing as to "chase" or to "charge". Do you have some new eye witness information saying Z "chased" M? Also I know of no source saying Z ever drew the weapon prior to the shooting.

It's recorded on the police calls that he followed first in his car then when Martin started running (later reports from a friend of Martin's said that he called her fearing someone was following him and she told him to run) Zimmerman got out of the car and started chasing him.

Now he did stop before he caught up because the operator told him to stop running and he eventually did. The phone calls stopped and inbetween that and the police arriving Zimmerman had shot Martin dead.

This thread being more about the laws in general rather than the case (which is discussed in another thread) the issue of "who is the agressor and who is acting in self defence" is one which makes the laws senseless to me. Rather it would be best to simply leave it at self-defence with reasonable force and leave the argument for court.

 

[mheslep]

It's recorded on the police calls that he followed first in his car then when Martin started running (later reports from a friend of Martin's said that he called her fearing someone was following him and she told him to run) Zimmerman got out of the car and started chasing him.

Now he did stop before he caught up because the operator told him to stop running and he eventually did. The phone calls stopped and inbetween that and the police arriving Zimmerman had shot Martin dead. ...

That's not an accurate description of the 911 call:

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

http://www.examiner.com/unsolved-ca...zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed#ixzz1sKHG6g4

In the transcript Zimmerman reports Martin as running and makes no mention of his car.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you listen to the tapes rather than reading the transcript you should hear that Zimmerman is panting and obviously either running or walking pretty brisk. Coupled with how he exclaims that Martin is running it would be pretty odd if he was actually walking. Regarding the car he starts out in a car IIRC when he makes the first call though I may be wrong.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They were both standing their ground and were both defending themselves from a threat. Just call it a wash.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They were both standing their ground and were both defending themselves from a threat. Just call it a wash.

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

He won't get a fair trial, but not in his favor. He'll probably get manslaughter or something like that to prevent a riot, and then they'll get to work on that law.

 

[jim hardy]

Zimmerman was carrying a gun and chasing Martin. That's a far cry from calmly asking "who are you?" ...

And there's only one living soul left who knows which scenario is closer to the truth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

I see it says something about "immunity" in the wiki on "stand your ground" but I can not figure out how a person gets "immunity" this way.

Ok. A little reading seems to say that "immunity" can be granted with a successful motion to dismiss in a "stand your ground" case. If a defendant can show a judge, based on undisputed evidence of the case, that the use of force was a reasonable response the case may be dismissed with prejudice. As far as I know this can happen in any case though the law in Florida it appears may specifically prohibit civil action upon the dismissal. So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

 

[Evo]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defence and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.

 

[jim hardy]

So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.

i wonder if instead Zimmerman might have a suit against the Florida prosecutors and the news media.

What would you do as a cop if , upon arriving at the scene, you found this guy was co-operative and he told you it was self defense ?

gonna be interesting.

 

[Evo]

Once the bit of blood was cleaned up, it was hardly more than a scratch. Let's see, armed man goes after teenager walking home and the teenager defends himself from what he can only guess is someone that plans to kill him.

 

[leroyjenkens]

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?

 

[Evo]

Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?

Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.

 

[turbo]

Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you. The phone calls do not support the idea that Trayvon Martin attacked this guy. It is clear that Zimmerman was not "standing his ground". He followed and chased an unarmed teenager and caused a confrontation with no provocation. I am not a lawyer, but I would welcome the chance to take this case before a jury as a prosecutor.

 

[nitsuj]

Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defense and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.

Im no lawyer, but my understanding any laws like this it's always "what a reasonable person would do.".

A reasonable person would be aware that being in plain cloths and following somebody could easily be considered a threat by the person being followed (of course "body language" would be a deciding factor). In turn the person following should act accordingly, presenting them self peacefully & identify them self.

Generally the person being followed would have zero obligation to comply.

The zimmer dudes mindset is not "in tune" with the reality. He is just a plain cloths person with some agenda. It can't be kept a secret from the person he is pursuing.

Seems like you are suggesting that police can be judge & jury with "self defense". They can't it still has to be "ruled on". I forget what it is called, but it is where lawyers present there case to be heard, judge can say nope, cause xyz, so we won't try the case. NEXT!

So yes such a law might prevent it from going to "court/jury" but it does not prevent very bright people looking over the case and seeing if there is something there to try, probably followed with a very detailed report why the case cannot be tried.Last point wow, concealable guns in public hands really, really, really complicate these issues. Those darn Brits. To have such wording in the constitution seems to have a detrimental effect on the people it is meant to protect.

Doc, it hurts when I do this...

I suppose Briton gets the last laugh.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you.

You're right, they can bleed like crazy from a very small wound and aren't very dangerous. But having your head slammed on the ground is dangerous. Wounds themselves might not be dangerous, but what causes the wounds can be.

 

[Evo]

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

That's why it is going to trial.

 

[nitsuj]

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

And is probably never inevitable, which is why to assume manslaughter/murder makes sense.

To Evo's point, the trial.

 

[leroyjenkens]

That's why it is going to trial.

I meant why in your opinion it's manslaughter.

 

[nitsuj]

"Shooting & killing someone isn't always manslaughter/murder."

That is why it is going to trial, to see if it is manslaughter/murder or self defense.

 

[mheslep]

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

Where is the information showing Martin knew Zimmerman was armed prior to the physical struggle? Is there a witness that has stated they saw Zimmerman walking around with his weapon drawn?

 

[mheslep]

How would we conclude that Martin would have had cause to assume a guy following him planned to kill him? All we know from the 911 call is that Martin would have seen a man following him, no weapon indicated.

 

[Evo]

Even if he was not aware of the gun, the calls indicate Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman and tried to run away from him. Zimmerman started chasing him when Trayvon tried to run away. At what point Zimmerman pulled his gun, I don't know, but it's obvious he did.

Again, this is why it needs to go to trial, IMO.

 

[jim hardy]

That is why it is going to trial, to see if it is manslaughter/murder or self defense.

I pray for an ending more like "Oklahoma" than "Billy Budd".

 

[phoenix:\\]

“A “stand-your-ground” law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.”

This law is horrible. Reasonable belief of a "threat", not to your life, just a "threat" is enough to warrant killing in the middle of the streets?

Would the law stand if my spouse was hitting me in public and I decided to shoot her?

 

[jim hardy]

Only if you're afraid she could beat you within an inch of your life or beyond, and believed that she intended to.

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.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Even if he was not aware of the gun, the calls indicate Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman and tried to run away from him. Zimmerman started chasing him when Trayvon tried to run away. At what point Zimmerman pulled his gun, I don't know, but it's obvious he did.

Again, this is why it needs to go to trial, IMO.

The subject of OP of this thread is the "Stand Your Ground Laws". It was intended to open a discussion of the pros and cons of the laws. (Which may or may not be used in the Florida case)

The above post is about the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida and consists of at least three speculative points: 1. Trayvon was afraid. 2. Trayvon tried to run. 3. Zimmerman started chasing him.

We here in the public have absolutely no way to know what happenend that night. Testimony of the survivor has not been released, details of the several different investigations have not been made public, and one participant is dead. So, guessing about who did what is futile and unjustified. Furthermore, it is far from this thread's subject area, namely, the laws themselves.