What happens if you start a fight with somebody and that person starts beating you. Do you have to let them kill you?Like he said, that someone could stalk a person, start a fight with them and then shoot them because he was afraid of being hit
You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.leroyjenkens said:What happens if you start a fight with somebody and that person starts beating you. Do you have to let them kill you?
I hope you're just making a really, really bad joke. You realize that Zimmerman was chasing after the kid? If you aren't familiar with the case, you really shouldn't comment.jim hardy said:Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?
(duck and cover)
old jim
call placed by Zimmerman the night of the Feb. 26, 2012 altercation, in which he tells a non-emergency dispatcher he is following the teen and uses the terms "f--ing punks" and "---holes." Prosecutors attempted to prove that the language shows Zimmerman acted with ill will or spite, elements of the second degree murder charge.
Murder is murder imo (speaking in loose terms). The arguments given by both of the sides have made things really hazy for me but the end result is black and white: the 17 year old kid was killed.jim hardy said:Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?
Manslaughter Maximum of 15 years in prison; maximum of 30 years in prison if a firearm is used plus a mandatory minimum of 25 years
Aggravated manslaughter of a child Maximum of 30 years in prison; maximum could be enhanced to life in prison if a firearm is used plus a mandatory minimum of 25 years
Third degree murder Maximum of 15 years in prison; maximum of 30 years in prison if a firearm is used plus a mandatory minimum of 25 years
Second degree murder Maximum of life in prison; Minimum of 25 years if a firearm is used, otherwise a minimum of 20.5 years under sentencing guidelines for a person with a clean record.
First degree murder Death penalty or life in prison. Parole in FL has been abolished for all crimes since 1983.
No, you're not.jim hardy said:Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?
(duck and cover)
old jim
I don't think you know what manslaughter is.Evo said:You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.
You say this like this law isn't ridiculous and barbaric.Physics_UG said:By the stand your ground law in Florida you can kill someone even if you THINK your life is at risk.
Yes, you are speaking loosely. The law isn't.WannabeNewton said:Murder is murder imo (speaking in loose terms). The arguments given by both of the sides have made things really hazy for me but the end result is black and white: the 17 year old kid was killed.
All of that is true (though he wasn't just afraid of injury: he was being injured) and the relevant part at the end points to an innocent verdict.Evo said:It's a terrible tragedy caused by some self appointed vigilante with a history of violence (Zimmerman has arrests for both domestic violence and assaulting a police officer) chasing an innocent kid. The kid wasn't doing anything illegal, if you're not familiar with what happened, you can read the transcripts of the calls Zimmerman made where police dispatch told him to stop going after the kid and let them handle it. Zimmerman ignored the police warning to back off. The entire thing is Zimmerman's fault.
But in Florida, you only need to be afraid of bodily injury at the time you kill the person you attacked to be considered innocent.
FYI, this case was not about the stand your ground law. Not sure where it came from(I think it was the early media sensationalism), but it was not part of the case.WannabeNewton said:You say this like this law isn't ridiculous and barbaric.
Yes, according to Florida law, they had to use "reasonable doubt", not knowing all of the details when Zimmerman shot the kid. I did hear the ABC analyst tonight saying that according to Zimmerman's testimony that his description of his position and Martin's it would have been physically impossible for him to get his gun out. But I don't know the details, supposedly this will be gone over in more detail later.russ_watters said:All of that is true (though he wasn't just afraid of injury: he was being injured) and the relevant part at the end points to an innocent verdict.
Zimmerman was 28 at the time and he's half Hispanic and looks and self-identifies as hispanic. It just makes for better race baiting to call him white.reenmachine said:Didn't follow this case at all , all I know is the murderer is a middle-aged white guy...
Isn't it true that there is hostility between Blacks and Hispanics? I know when I lived in Houston gang related murders were between Blacks and Hispanics.russ_watters said:Zimmerman was 28 at the time and he's Hispanic. It just makes for better race baiting to call him white.
Cmon, Evo, we know the details clearly enough from witnesses and forensics: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him, when Zimmerman shot him.Evo said:Yes, according to Florida law, they had to use "reasonable doubt", not knowing all of the details when Zimmerman shot the kid. I did hear the ABC analyst tonight saying that according to Zimmerman's testimony that his description of his position and Martin's it would have been physically impossible for him to get his gun out. But I don't know the details, supposedly this will be gone over in more detail later.
How is that relevant?Evo said:Isn't it true that there is hostility between Blacks and Hispanics? I know when I lived in Houston gang related murders were between Blacks and Hispanics.
Just to back up my opinion. http://www.google.com/#output=searc...08,d.aWc&fp=18e6370796e2b030&biw=1032&bih=631
Not really.russ_watters said:Cmon, Evo, we know the details clearly enough from witnesses and forensics: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him, when Zimmerman shot him.
I was addressing your comment about calling Zimmerman white instead of Hispanic was playing the race card, when actually calling him Hispanic would be worse in the eyes of the black community, IMO.russ_watters said:How is that relevant?
WannabeNewton said:You say this like this law isn't ridiculous and barbaric.
According to eyewitnesses, as far as they could tell, it was Zimmerman on top of Martin.russ_watters said:Cmon, Evo, we know the details clearly enough from witnesses and forensics: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him, when Zimmerman shot him.
Eyewitnesses Describe Zimmerman As Aggressor
Evo said:According to eyewitnesses, as far as they could tell, it was Zimmerman on top of Martin.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/nation-world/article/264082/381/Eyewitnesses-Describe-Zimmerman-As-Aggressor
Zimmerman acted unlawfully, the neighborhood watch (see the video in my link) does not allow the watch person to follow or confront anyone. They are supposed to call police and stay away. Not only did he violate the watch rules, he went against the police when they told him to stop following Martin and let them handle it.Physics_UG said:Not all of them. Fact is, all the defense needed to do is establish reasonable doubt, which they did. Any reasonable person can see that.
Perhaps Martin, who was unarmed, was defending himself the only way he could. It would have been better if he ran.russ_watters said:Cmon, Evo, we know the details clearly enough from witnesses and forensics: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him, when Zimmerman shot him.
Physics_UG said:Not all of them. Fact is, all the defense needed to do is establish reasonable doubt, which they did. Any reasonable person can see that.