• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trayvon Martin: Special prosecutor appointed in Trayvon Martin shooting case

Excon said:
That may be, but if he acted in self-defense as claimed and not contradicted by the evidence.
Then he should be fine if they actually follow the law.
Click to expand...


Can you claim self defense when you are the aggressor that caused the altercation in the first place?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
"You don't need to do that sir..." That will be played over, and over, and over.
Click to expand...
They may do that. But once the defense shows and stresses that it wasn't wrong to keep someone under observation until police arrive.
It should have an impact on whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Unless of course the jury is made up of the likes of some of the people here who just want to ignore that.
 
ARealConservative said:
actually he is only quoting 776.032, which in turn lists any three making it apply. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031

So he didn't actually say the decision was based on 776.013, he said it was based on 776.032
Click to expand...

Okay, I couldn't find a decent summary of what specific changes in Florida statutes that happened in 2005 that have been labeled 'stand your ground' laws, so I had to manually look it in the Florida statute archives. Here is what I found:

In 2004 the statutes stood as follows-

Title XLVI [CRIMES]
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
Click to expand...

Archive: Florida Chapter 776 Statutes 2004


Here's what changed in 2005 (and remains the same today)-

Title XLVI [CRIMES]
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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 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.

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

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

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.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
Click to expand...
Archive: Florida Chapter 776 Statutes 2005
[All emphases mine]



So, I believe we are both right, ARealConservative. Statute 776.013(3) is the only mention of "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force...", but statute 776.012 and 776.032 are also part of the 'stand your ground' laws since 776.012 was changed to include "does not have a duty to retreat", and 776.032 was added to guarantee "immunity from criminal prosecution" if 776.012 or 776.013 is relevant (776.031 doesn't apply in this case). When chief Lee justified the release of Zimmerman, I believe he was invoking the 'stand your ground' statutes, so there... nanner, nanner (grin).
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
And that is the part I can't get past....Police were on their way, and Zimmerman continued to pursue after being told by the dispatcher that he didn't need to do that...I think if anything damning during a trial would mitigate this as being avoidable, it will be that.

j-mac
Click to expand...


Again, a dispatcher's word has NO basis in freaking law- they can't *tell, order, instruct, etc* anyone to do anything

Do you think all dispatchers are good? lol

I think for ever good one on a night rotation....3 are god awful
 
Excon said:
They may do that. But once the defense shows and stresses that it wasn't wrong to keep someone under observation until police arrive.
It should have an impact on whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Unless of course the jury is made up of the likes of some of the people here who just want to ignore that.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't think so, see I don't like to blame the dead victim unless there is evidence pointing to such, and not some anonymous supposed "witness".


j-mac
 
ric27 said:
Again, a dispatcher's word has NO basis in freaking law- they can't *tell, order, instruct, etc* anyone to do anything

Do you think all dispatchers are good? lol

I think for ever good one on a night rotation....3 are god awful
Click to expand...


Not at all...but I have a problem with a 17 Year old being shot, when all he was armed with was an Iced Tea, and Skittles.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Can you claim self defense when you are the aggressor that caused the altercation in the first place?
Click to expand...
You do understand that I am arguing the evidence as it is known at this time, right?
The evidence currently known does not support Zimmerman being the aggressor.
And his statement is not contradicted by the known evidence either.

But back to your supposed hypothetical, as applied to this situation. No, I doubt that a person could claim self defense if they were the actual aggressor.
But since there is no evidence to support such a supposition, there is no reason even to consider it.
 
j-mac said:
That is what the defense for Zimmerman is counting on, however, what is causing such confusion is that those defending Zimmerman are making out Martin to be some thug kid, that attacked Zimmerman, when there isn't one of us that wouldn't be spooked by some stranger following us, and hell might even confront that person to see who they are, and why they are following...
Click to expand...

Bottom line at this moment is an old saying, "when two bad decisions meet, nothing good happens."
Very true.so basically the stalker got attacked by the stalked?bad decision.the victim should have call the cops just like the stalker,not attack.that's when things got out of hand.oh well.I feel sorry for both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excon said:
Unless of course the jury is made up of the likes of some of the people here who just want to ignore that.
Click to expand...

A couple of words on juries...

Their views are colored by Oprah, the media, Jersey Shore, the Walking Dead, CSI, Law and Order, etc
 
Fubar said:
j-mac said:
That is what the defense for Zimmerman is counting on, however, what is causing such confusion is that those defending Zimmerman are making out Martin to be some thug kid, that attacked Zimmerman, when there isn't one of us that wouldn't be spooked by some stranger following us, and hell might even confront that person to see who they are, and why they are following...
Click to expand...

Bottom line at this moment is an old saying, "when two bad decisions meet, nothing good happens."
Very true.so basically the stalker got attacked by the stalked?bad decision.the victim should have call the cops just like the stalker,not attack.that's when things got out of hand.oh well.I feel sorry for both.
Click to expand...


Totally nailed it.

According to info as available, Zimmerman followed Martin despite being advised against same by dispatch. Bad Call #1.

According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him... this is partly supported by his injuries and two eyewitness accounts.... Bad Call #2.

Zimmerman shot an unarmed young man.... Bad Call #3, though he was being beaten at the time as far as we know and that could be considered adequate justification.

Fortunately Zimmerman will be tried, if he is tried, in a court of law and not the court of uninformed public opinion.....
 
j-mac said:
Well, I don't think so, see I don't like to blame the dead victim unless there is evidence pointing to such, and not some anonymous supposed "witness".
Click to expand...
If Trayvon is at fault for the confrontation, he is not a victim.

The known evidence says that Zimmerman was attacked from behind - Zimmerman
Trayvon confronted Zimmerman first w/a question. - Trayvon's girlfriend
all other evidence is consistent with this

Zimmerman was on his back and the one asking for help. - on scene eye witness
The guy who was on top in the scuffle is now dead. - on scene eye witness

Overheard statement of Zimmerman's, to the effect of, I was calling for help and no one came - on scene police
 
Excon said:
You do understand that I am arguing the evidence as it is known at this time, right?
Click to expand...

No, you are arguing selected portions of speculation given by media sources. Nothing has legally been entered into evidence in any public trial. So you don't know, unless you are part of the law enforcement team investigating this at the moment....Are you?

The evidence currently known does not support Zimmerman being the aggressor.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

As reported since that is the only info we have to go on...

1. Zimmerman self described himself as a NW commander.
2. Zimmerman iniated pursuit of Martin as Martin told his girlfriend over the phone.
3. Zimmerman was advised to no pursue by 911 operators, and ignored that advice.
4. Martin started to run, Zimmerman ran after him.

These things IMHO, make Zimmerman the aggressor....

And his statement is not contradicted by the known evidence either.
Click to expand...

We don't know all the "known evidence" as the investigation is ongoing.

But back to your supposed hypothetical, as applied to this situation. No, I doubt that a person could claim self defense if they were the actual aggressor.
But since there is no evidence to support such a supposition, there is no reason even to consider it.
Click to expand...

Then you should cease saying that it was self defense. Good God man, you haven't got a clue what evidence the Police have and what they don't...You can act as arrogant as you please, but that doesn't make what you say worth a warm bucket of spit unless you can say that you are part of the investigation, which I highly doubt.

j-mac
 
ric27 said:
A couple of words on juries...

Their views are colored by Oprah, the media, Jersey Shore, the Walking Dead, CSI, Law and Order, etc
Click to expand...
Of course they are and it is something that the legal system has to deal with.
In my opinion, they don't do enough, but that means nothing overall.
 
Excon said:
...But back to your supposed hypothetical, as applied to this situation. No, I doubt that a person could claim self defense if they were the actual aggressor.
But since there is no evidence to support such a supposition, there is no reason even to consider it.
Click to expand...

There are things we should consider; there are things we should consider considering.
We also should consider that there are considerable considerations; that is to say we know there are some things we do not consider.
But there are also inconsiderable considerations – there are things we should consider not considering.
[NOT by Donald Rumsfeld]


Sorry, couldn't help myself.
 
MaggieD said:
Ridiculous. If he was "already scared," sensible people would ask, "Then why the hell didn't you just drive away?? You damn well knew the LEO's were on their way." That's not going to fly, my friend.

Whether or not charges are pressed, whether or not he is found guilty or innocent, a whole bunch of law-abiding Americans are going to put the blame for Martin's death squarely on Zimmerman's shoulders...where it belongs.

Stay in the car and drive away: A few minutes later, a marked police car pulls up to Martin...a uniformed police officer exits his vehicle...asks Martin what his business is in the neighborhood (Personally, I don't think he should even ask that.) Martin tells him...continues to walk to his dad's girlfriend's house...drinks his iced tea...and finishes his Skittles.
Click to expand...

Not only did Zimmerman not stay in or near his SUV, but at one point when the 911 dispatch is informing him a cruiser is on its way over, the 911 dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he'll wait by some mailboxes where he was at the moment and Zimmerman asked if the arriving officer could call him instead so Zimmerman could tell the cop his location because at that moment, Zimmerman decided he was going hunting for Martin after Martin ran off.
 
What if...? said:
Do you know when the call-in-progress to the girlfriend came out?
Click to expand...

I was busy researching... but, no I don't.

[Update]

Wednesday, March 21, by Bernjamin Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, I believe is the first public mention of it.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Going after someone as in following to keep them under observation is not wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course it's wrong. If it wasn't wrong, the neighborhood watch program wouldn't urgently warn its members not to do that.

Call the police and report what you've seen.

That's it.

That's the extent of their role.

Neighborhood Watch Manual

REMEMBER:

Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities.
- page 22


Why do you think that is what neighborhood watch members are instructed to do?

Why did Zimmerman ignore that; along with ignoring the 911 operator's advice to the same?
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:

Of course it's wrong. If it wasn't wrong, the neighborhood watch program wouldn't urgently warn its members not to do that.

Call the police and report what you've seen.

That's it.

That's the extent of their role.

Neighborhood Watch Manual

REMEMBER:

Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities.
- page 22


Why do you think that is what neighborhood watch members are instructed to do?

Why did Zimmerman ignore that; along with ignoring the 911 operator's advice to the same?
Click to expand...

Because we're Americans mother****er. We ain't gotta do ****. USA! USA! USA!
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:

Of course it's wrong. If it wasn't wrong, the neighborhood watch program wouldn't urgently warn its members not to do that.

Call the police and report what you've seen.

That's it.

That's the extent of their role.

Neighborhood Watch Manual

REMEMBER:

Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities.
- page 22


Why do you think that is what neighborhood watch members are instructed to do?

Why did Zimmerman ignore that; along with ignoring the 911 operator's advice to the same?
Click to expand...

The neighborhood watch manual is considered a part of the U.S. code, now? :rofl
 
Goshin said:
According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him... this is partly supported by his injuries and two eyewitness accounts.... Bad Call #2.
Click to expand...
That is not supported by eyewitness accounts. The most eyewitnesses had to offer was describing that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman's injuries are evidence that he was getting his ass kicked ... by an unarmed person.

No one other than the person claiming self-defense has said Zimmerman was first attacked by Martin.

Who, by the way, was within his right to attack Zimmerman if he reasonably believed the stranger following him in the dark for no apparent reason, first by car, then by foot, posed an imminent threat to him.
 
Excon said:
Of course they are and it is something that the legal system has to deal with.
In my opinion, they don't do enough, but that means nothing overall.
Click to expand...

Also like to add...Cops don't sit on criminal juries and eyewitness statements are notorious for being incorrect.

Anyone who believes the criminal justice system is an actual system and on the level is probably bull****ting themselves


​
 
Excon said:
The known evidence says that Zimmerman was attacked from behind - Zimmerman
Trayvon confronted Zimmerman first w/a question. - Trayvon's girlfriend
Click to expand...

Zimmerman was in his car ... how was Martin in a position to ask Zimmerman why he was following him?
 
j-mac said:
No, you are arguing selected portions of speculation given by media sources.
Click to expand...
I don't see where you are getting that from?

Provided Quotes are not speculation.
The police report is not speculation.
The quotes from the on scene eye-witness is not speculation.
Quotes from the 911 calls are not speculation.
Quotes from Trayvons girlfriend are not speculation.

This is the known evidence.
That is what we have.

Do we need to go over each and every one again for their establishment?


I have been trying to avoid all supposition and speculation because of where it leads.
And for the most part, do so.
But I have at times, because apparently, at this forum, you have to.



j-mac said:
Nothing has legally been entered into evidence in any public trial. So you don't know, unless you are part of the law enforcement team investigating this at the moment....
Click to expand...
Evidence is evidence. It doesn't need to be entered into any trial to be evidence.
Have you ever heard of evidence not being admitted by the Judge? It was still evidence, it just not able to be admitted at trial for specific reasons.
But if you prefer we can use the term 'information', but that term is what is usually used for charging a person.



j-mac said:
I disagree.

As reported since that is the only info we have to go on...

1. Zimmerman self described himself as a NW commander.
Click to expand...
Now this is actually "arguing selected portions of speculation given by media sources".
But, it isn't true.

j-mac said:
2. Zimmerman iniated pursuit of Martin as Martin told his girlfriend over the phone.
Click to expand...
This is a characterization of it and most likely the way Trayvon saw it.
But it isn't entirely accurate.
More accurately stated, was that Zimmerman, acting in the capacity of NW followed a person who he thought was suspicious, to keep him under observation until the police who he called arrived.

j-mac said:
3. Zimmerman was advised to no pursue by 911 operators, and ignored that advice.
Click to expand...
The 911 dispatcher, made a "suggestion", that Zimmerman had no obligation to follow.
As a side note, Zimmerman at one point must have stop following Zimmerman. According to the evidence, Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck. That would mean he wasn't following him doesn't it?


j-mac said:
4. Martin started to run, Zimmerman ran after him.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman following a suspicious person to keep him under observation until police arrive is not wrong and does not any anyway make Zimmerman the aggressor.


j-mac said:
These things IMHO, make Zimmerman the aggressor....
Click to expand...
I do not know how when you got them all wrong, and the known evidence doesn't support that conclusion.
Two statements.
The evidence states that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman first with a question. First contact.
Zimmerman's statement says Trayvon attacked from behind. Again, first contact.



j-mac said:
We don't know all the "known evidence" as the investigation is ongoing.
Click to expand...
I am sure that we do not have all the evidence that the police and prosecution does.
But that is not the known evidence available to us is it?
And that is what we are talking about here. The evidence as known by us. The known evidence.
Not known to them, but known to us.



j-mac said:
Then you should cease saying that it was self defense. Good God man, you haven't got a clue what evidence the Police have and what they don't...You can act as arrogant as you please,
Click to expand...
Obviously what the police have, that they clued us into, as evidenced from the Police Chief's quoted statements, was that what they had wasn't enough to bring charges. That's the clue.

That is part of the evidence we are discussing, right?
The evidence that they have, and we do not, was not enough to bring charges.
That is the evidence we have.
Please tell me what you do not understand about that?
 
apdst said:
The neighborhood watch manual is considered a part of the U.S. code, now? :rofl
Click to expand...
Your silly hyperbole aside, of course it's not law. Which is why I'm surprised it escaped your attention that I called it a "procedure" and not a "law." How did you miss that??

It is the procedure to be followed by those who volunteer for the service. They take a training course by local law enforcement, it's that important that these procedures be followed in order to avert what occurred here.

IMO, once Zimmerman accepted his role as a neighborhood watch and decided to not only violate their procedures, but the advice of the 911 dispatcher, he became negligent in his duties and that negligence was one of, if not the most, contributing factors in an unarmed teenager heading back to where he was staying after going to 7-11 to buy some candy.

I hope they get Zimmerman, at the very least, for negligent homicide.
 
j-mac said:
Not at all...but I have a problem with a 17 Year old being shot, when all he was armed with was an Iced Tea, and Skittles.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The bad fallout will result in level headed folk, remembering this (how Zimmerman got screwed) and looking the other way so as not to risk ****ing up thier own lives, even when their instincts tell them they are witnessing a crime or dispatchers *suggesting* people to go away and not get involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom