17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

[ThoughtFox]

So, who would not belong there? I remember Toobin from CNN going step by step with the necessary requirements and he stated "TM belonged there b/c he was visiting his dad" and so forth. So, if GZ had no business being there what ground is he standing? He should have stood his ground in his car (stand your car dammit) like he was directed to do.

That's exactly how the law was meant to be interpreted. It is supposed to protect you if you're in your home, car, or business and can't get away.

Out in the open when you are the one following someone? Not really what they had in mind, and in fact if you click the link to the Gun Licensing page in my sig, it explicitly states that you can't wave a gun around at someone while making threats, you can't shoot someone because they said something you don't like, and you have to be in serious danger of your life or protecting someone else from harm.

George tried to say that he was scared of Trayvon who was slamming his head into the sidewalk, but the problem is they have witnesses who would say that when the gun went off they were not on the sidewalk, but on the grass. That's why the SA brought charges - they don't buy Zimmerman's story.

 

[songline]

The other thing I keep wondering about is if there is a witness, or witnesses that we haven't heard from in the news. Someone who kept their counsel and talked only to investigators.

They have said that there is one, they have said there is information se do not have.
I do not know....But I am eager to know the truth.
not the truth that the public painted
The truth that was investigated by the FBI

 

[LinasK]

No, that is not how it works. Robbing a bank is illegal. Thus a person can not rob a bank and claim SYG because they were in a process of doing something illegal. Being in a gated community is legal regardless of what part of the community Zimmerman was at.

But...he had no business patrolling, especially not with a loaded weapon because Neighborhood Watch does not patrol, and is not supposed to be armed!

 

[LinasK]

I respectfully disagree.....strongly.

I read today in an article that some states are calling the SYG Law, "shoot first, ask questions later".

 

[annalia]

:doh:

oh gosh. thanks. that's what I get for not watchin' it on the tube.

next questions:

1) Can the next judge disagree that there's probable cause prior to the bond hearing & just vacate the charges?

2) Won't MOM assert self-defense at the bond hearing & motion for dismissal before any pleading or bond request?

TIA. I can't watch the talking heads, so hoping someone covered these points...

BBM

I think a judge can do that, the way I heard it, (someone correct me if this is wrong), a judge can grant him immunity from prosecution based on SYG. It's not yet a foregone conclusion that this will go to trial.

I don't know if the defense can claim self defense at the bond hearing and have the charges dismissed.

JMHO

 

[JeannaT]

That's exactly how the law was meant to be interpreted. It is supposed to protect you if you're in your home, car, or business and can't get away.

Out in the open when you are the one following someone? Not really what they had in mind, and in fact if you click the link to the Gun Licensing page in my sig, it explicitly states that you can't wave a gun around at someone while making threats, you can't shoot someone because they said something you don't like, and you have to be in serious danger of your life or protecting someone else from harm.

George tried to say that he was scared of Trayvon who was slamming his head into the sidewalk, but the problem is they have witnesses who would say that when the gun went off they were not on the sidewalk, but on the grass. That's why the SA brought charges - they don't buy Zimmerman's story.

That's not true. You have no duty, under the SYG, to attempt to flee. That's why it's called Stand Your Ground. Any place you can legally be, and are not committing a crime, you have the right to Stand Your Ground and shoot to kill if someone is threatening you with serious bodily injuries or death.

There's no clause that you have an obligation to "get away" if you can.

 

[frenchvixen]

But...he had no business patrolling, especially not with a loaded weapon because Neighborhood Watch does not patrol, and is not supposed to be armed!

See, GZ has no business having a gun and patrolling and this is why his brother has been adamant that GZ was not on watch that night. So, if he wasn't on watch that night what was he doing in that part of town? He cannot stand his ground where he is not supposed to be especially if he was warned not to do so.

I think once GZ's attorneys review everything they will advise him to take a plea b/c MOM stated last night that GZ will have to take the stand if he is going to use self defense. His story will not be believable when he is asked how did he get from his car to TM if he was not following him or how did TM's body end up steps away from his dad's place if GZ was in his car?

 

[momshrink]

IMO the prosecutor has something ,either a witness or evidence the we haven't heard about to come up with second degree murder.

I think the SA has both evidence and witnesses we have not heard about. While I am disappointed that we will not get all of the doc dumps with records sealed, I think the integrity if the case will be preserved and justice will be served.
JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Gotta watch for articles on FL precedent - previous cases and how they "interpreted" the SYG law in situations extending extend beyond your home, your vehicle, your office, etc. - where you can't get away from a deadly threat...

And, and precedent on what's considered a reasonable standard for "feeling life-threatened"?

I mean - how do you judge that if there's no witness? It's always in the mind of the person who feels threatened.

:no:


LOL. Maybe I'll start sending e-mails of my questions to NeJame via CNN. Was happy he's signed on there. That's pretty cool beans. Hope they don't make him do NG too often. :crazy:

 

[frenchvixen]

That's not true. You have no duty, under the SYG, to attempt to flee. That's why it's called Stand Your Ground. Any place you can legally be, and are not committing a crime, you have the right to Stand Your Ground and shoot to kill if someone is threatening you with serious bodily injuries or death.

There's no clause that you have an obligation to "get away" if you can.

I have to read SYG in its entirety but I doubt the spirit of this law means that you can follow a minor, accost him and then shoot him. I seriously doubt this.

 

[annalia]

There was some discussion in one of these threads about who has the burden in a self defense case.

Alan Derschowitz was on one of the shows last night and said that the burden shifts to the defense. I can't recall if he specifically said SYG or just self defense.

I don't have a link so I guess TIFWIW, I just thought it was interesting.

JMHO

 

[frenchvixen]

Gotta watch for articles on FL precedent - previous cases and how they "interpreted" the SYG law in situations extending extend beyond your home, your vehicle, your office, etc. - where you can't get away from a deadly threat...

And, and precedent on what's considered a reasonable standard for "feeling life-threatened"?

I mean - how do you judge that if there's no witness? It's always in the mind of the person who feels threatened.

:no:

Is there FL precedent on disobeying a 911 operator? This would be most helpful in determining if GZ has the "legal" right to be where he was.

 

[songline]

Some legal experts are interpreting the law in the manner Hornsby states. Some are not. I have a feeling this law will be subject to judicial clarification at some point in the future, possibly via this case. If you are correct, then Zimmerman will likely walk.

I pray that because of this case that we will get refined, clarified. Fixed, adjusted, whatever you want to call it.

But it cannot be a license for mad men.

 

[momshrink]

is it weird of me to be grateful that if GZ had to ask a lawyer related to the anthony fiasco to represent, that he chose MN over JB? :waitasec:

And you just know JB would love to have had this case.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Emma Peel]

There was some discussion in one of these threads about who has the burden in a self defense case.

Alan Derschowitz was on one of the shows last night and said that the burden shifts to the defense. I can't recall if he specifically said SYG or just self defense.

I don't have a link so I guess TIFWIW, I just thought it was interesting.

JMHO

Here's Dershowitz on this topic - from earlier in the week. Clear as mud. :cow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-rorschach-facts-in-th_b_1418441.html

These "facts" give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who "initially provoke[d] the use of force," and who started the physical encounter.

If Zimmerman initially provoked the deadly encounter, then he cannot invoke any "stand your ground" defense. He would then be under a legal obligation to "exhaust ... every reasonable means to escape."

Though this statute is anything but a model of clarity, it does suggest that whoever "provokes" a deadly encounter has a heavy burden of justification in claiming self-defense. But the statute doesn't define "provokes," and that ambiguous word may hold the key to the outcome of this tragic case.

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin. This would almost certainly constitute provocation.

But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.

 

[JeannaT]

I have to read SYG in its entirety but I doubt the spirit of this law means that you can follow a minor, accost him and then shoot him. I seriously doubt this.

It certainly means you can call the cops and keep an eye on someone, and if they assault you and continue to threaten your life/health, you can shoot them.

The problem here is there were no witnesses to the beginning of the physical battle.

 

[Elley Mae]

There was some discussion in one of these threads about who has the burden in a self defense case.

Alan Derschowitz was on one of the shows last night and said that the burden shifts to the defense. I can't recall if he specifically said SYG or just self defense.

I don't have a link so I guess TIFWIW, I just thought it was interesting.

JMHO

I am thinking self defense is what will be used. If it is known as we know here that in the position of "night watchman" it is illegal to carry your weapon why would the lawyer use SYG? We know that he was on his way to target from early on so I am thinking that the lawyer will probably stick with the target story. That way their story will not have changed. jmo

 

[songline]

In a separate instance (not this case), how would you know that the person who was shot wasn't trying to rob or attack the one with the gun? What if someone actually did get attacked and defended themselves to the point of killing the attacker? You automatically arrest the person still alive?

That is a fair question.
I think they do not always have to arrest JMO
but I do think they always must investigate thoroughly
not in a half hour. that is not investigating at all.

 

[AngelWings444]

And you just know JB would love to have had this case.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I wonder :waitasec: if JB was on MN's list of attorney's, presented to GZ? :floorlaugh:

 

[songline]

See, GZ has no business having a gun and patrolling and this is why his brother has been adamant that GZ was not on watch that night. So, if he wasn't on watch that night what was he doing in that part of town? He cannot stand his ground where he is not supposed to be especially if he was warned not to do so.

I think once GZ's attorneys review everything they will advise him to take a plea b/c MOM stated last night that GZ will have to take the stand if he is going to use self defense. His story will not be believable when he is asked how did he get from his car to TM if he was not following him or how did TM's body end up steps away from his dad's place if GZ was in his car?

Just 2 points:
George lives in that part of town he did not come from another community to this one :nono:
George saw something ---- I know that if you see something you say something.
I once saw a man trying to lift a wallet out of a lady’s bag...
You bet I grabbed his hand and yelled police.
the wallet fell to the floor and he was apprehended.
I sure could have pretended it was not my business.