Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

earthworm said:

Yes, it is...very much so..
The whole thing was set up on the Biblical "an eye for an eye".
This is what we should be trying to progress from.
Right now, there is little difference between the victim and the villain.
This "progress"may take another thousand years. But today we must take the first step.

Click to expand...

No, we should progress to "an eye for a tooth." A criminal must be considered not as someone who committed a specific crime, but as some enemy of mankind who got caught once and revealed which side he was on. Second, "a tooth for a tooth" is like telling a bank robber all he has to do is give the money back, because that was all his crime was. Any society that allows criminals to live is replacing its life force with a death wish.

earthworm said:

Yes, it is...very much so..
The whole thing was set up on the Biblical "an eye for an eye".
This is what we should be trying to progress from.
Right now, there is little difference between the victim and the villain.
This "progress"may take another thousand years. But today we must take the first step.

Click to expand...

Getting away from the concept of justice isn't progress, but digressing into a less civilized state. No matter how you and others want to excuse and justify criminal behaviors, this makes them more likely to happen, not less. If we had a world full of honest, intelligent, and high-minded individuals, your point might be well-taken. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a world whose population varies widely in intelligence, motivation, capabilities, and mental stability. Justice implies that the scales are balanced. Drifting away from justice will increase criminal activity, because criminal minds are not typically reasonable minds, nor altruistic minds.
You cannot reason away human failures and blame them on society as a whole, without making society pay for the crimes of the few.

stonewall50 said:

By pursuing some kid who probably wasn't doing anything wrong up to the point of the confrontation.

Click to expand...

So what? It's not illegal to follow someone in your own neighborhood, period.

stonewall50 said:

Would you? What if the person started wildly accusing you of being up to no good? If you try to just walk away from the guy and he tries to physically detain you? Are you considering that Treyvon is only a 17 year old kid? Because before you hero worship Zimmerman or clear him of wrong doing...do you accept that he was made a terrible decision that led to a kid getting shot.

Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.

stonewall50 said:

Zimmerman represents ALL of us when he carries. And we cannot accurately discuss whether or not Treyvon DID or DID NOT have a right to attack Zimmerman. If Zimmerman did physically try to detain Treyvon...what does the law say about that? In any case Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon.

Click to expand...

Zimmerman represents himself, period. Yes we can discuss it because we do have limited access to some of the reports. We also have Zimmerman's testimony as well as an eye witness. Stop with the strawman.

stonewall50 said:

Thanks. It was wasn't it? I will save them when you do. You started those little digs. Not me.

Click to expand...

And I will continue to point out your ignorant reply's and baseless accusations with no evidence. I will not however insult every security officer etc.

stonewall50 said:

Made sense to me.

Click to expand...

That does not say much.

stonewall50 said:

Neither did Treyvon. The ONE detail that we need...we don't know. How did Zimmerman and Treyvon end up in their little debaucle? Did Zimmerman make a terrible decision and overreact when he confronted Treyvon? Or did Treyvon just jump Zimmerman when he Zimmerman confronted him?

Click to expand...

According to the evidence we actually have from Zimmerman and an eye witness, Martin did attack Zimmerman as he returned to his car. Anything else on your part ignores the evidence we do have and is nothing but speculation, period.

stonewall50 said:

It was more than over zealous. It was stupidity. Gloryhounding? Maybe? Racist? Probably not. Paranoid? Maybe. Stupidity. Yes.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Last time I looked being stupid, racist, paranoid and/or a glory hound is not illegal.

stonewall50 said:

If you don't understand that...then you don't understand the ethical delima that Zimmerman is in...and I am done. I will not even respond to the rest of the thread. The fact that you are not willing to overlook the perfect LEGAL definition, because of the truly ETHICAL problem that Zimmerman entered into. Zimmerman had a "right" to pursue Treyvon like he was some sort of cop. He got to play "hero" and stop a "criminal." The problem is that Treyvon was just a kid. Sure he is a "6'2 man" but at heart do you think he was anything more than a scared friggin kid? Hell he could have been a stupid kid, but I am willing to bet he was scared.

Click to expand...

I am glad you will no longer be responding because your posts are so utterly devoid of knowledge and common sense it is amazing. At Martins age I was an armature boxer and going into the Army to be an Armor crewman. I am sorry if I saw a short **** like Zimmerman following me I would have laughed.

stonewall50 said:

As an Ex-cop do you REALLY lack the ability and reason to understand that ethical line that Zimmerman CLEARLY crossed?

Click to expand...

That is for the judge and jury to decide. Since he has not even been arrested, and with the FBI, State, County and local authority's investigating, the fact he has yet to be arrested let alone charged says allot.

Your hyperbole and strawman arguments are for the birds.

Blackdog said:

Everything
.

Click to expand...

Regardless of all the garbage you spewed you missed the MOST IMPORTANT point. It is TOTALLY irrelevant what verdict is rendered in this case. Zimmerman...while possibily (and I say possibily because there has been NO ruling and it is POSSIBLE) is in the Legal right...he is by NO WAY, SHAPE, FORM, SHADE, OR ROUGH ROUNDING SWEEPING STATEMENT...within the spirit of the law. Sure. The Spirit of the law is not the technicality of the law. But there is a difference between doing what is RIGHT, and doing what is technically right. One ends with you never having to deal with shooting another person. The other ends with a dead body and a ton of bad press for anyone and everyone who carries a concealed weapon and is pro self defense.

Btw...like it or not Zimmerman represents more than just himself. You may think the law is the only place he is represented, but it isn't. The media has had their field day with this, and as relatively recent as all of the decisions have been made, and the beautiful crippling blows that had been dealt to the anti-gun mob...this is not going to help the cause. Every time you strap a gun to your hip legally, you represent the entire group of concealed carry and if you don't act responsibly we can all suffer the consequences.

stonewall50 said:

Regardless of all the garbage you spewed you missed the MOST IMPORTANT point. It is TOTALLY irrelevant what verdict is rendered in this case. Zimmerman...while possibily (and I say possibily because there has been NO ruling and it is POSSIBLE) is in the Legal right...he is by NO WAY, SHAPE, FORM, SHADE, OR ROUGH ROUNDING SWEEPING STATEMENT...within the spirit of the law.

Click to expand...

Actually yes he does. If he was attacked for any reason he is allowed to defend himself, period. You can yell all you like and that does not change the law or it's spirit.

stonewall50 said:

Sure. The Spirit of the law is not the technicality of the law. But there is a difference between doing what is RIGHT, and doing what is technically right. One ends with you never having to deal with shooting another person. The other ends with a dead body and a ton of bad press for anyone and everyone who carries a concealed weapon and is pro self defense.

Click to expand...

If someone was putting my head into the pavement the threat of serious and deadly injury is great. I would have shot him as well. I would have also been justified in the spirit of the law as well. What happened prior to the attack is only important in that who attacked who first. Following, calling or asking a question does not give anyone the right to attack you, period.

stonewall50 said:

Btw...like it or not Zimmerman represents more than just himself.

Click to expand...

Only to morons who like to think in terms of and make blanket statements.

stonewall50 said:

You may think the law is the only place he is represented, but it isn't. The media has had their field day with this, and as relatively recent as all of the decisions have been made, and the beautiful crippling blows that had been dealt to the anti-gun mob...this is not going to help the cause. Every time you strap a gun to your hip legally, you represent the entire group of concealed carry and if you don't act responsibly we can all suffer the consequences.

Click to expand...

It is to bad they give CCW licences to idiots that don't know the law and jump to conclusions without all the evidence. :2wave:

Delete please.

stonewall50 said:

Regardless of all the garbage you spewed you missed the MOST IMPORTANT point. It is TOTALLY irrelevant what verdict is rendered in this case. Zimmerman...while possibily (and I say possibily because there has been NO ruling and it is POSSIBLE) is in the Legal right...he is by NO WAY, SHAPE, FORM, SHADE, OR ROUGH ROUNDING SWEEPING STATEMENT...within the spirit of the law. Sure. The Spirit of the law is not the technicality of the law. But there is a difference between doing what is RIGHT, and doing what is technically right. One ends with you never having to deal with shooting another person. The other ends with a dead body and a ton of bad press for anyone and everyone who carries a concealed weapon and is pro self defense.

Btw...like it or not Zimmerman represents more than just himself. You may think the law is the only place he is represented, but it isn't. The media has had their field day with this, and as relatively recent as all of the decisions have been made, and the beautiful crippling blows that had been dealt to the anti-gun mob...this is not going to help the cause. Every time you strap a gun to your hip legally, you represent the entire group of concealed carry and if you don't act responsibly we can all suffer the consequences.

Click to expand...

The media have manufactured Zimmerman's bad reputation. To gun owners, he is a hero. Long before this incident, the media made gun owners look bad, so they will ignore your warning.

PrometheusBound said:

The media have manufactured Zimmerman's bad reputation. To gun owners, he is a hero. Long before this incident, the media made gun owners look bad, so they will ignore your warning.

Click to expand...

He is NOT a hero to any gun owner who understands rational decision making. It is quite evident to me. While blackdog is to stubborn to say it openly, but it is QUITE clear that Zimmerman made a bad decision. I am not the only one who thinks that. I have had this discussion plenty too. Zimmerman's "bad reputation" was not manufactured to me either. He had run ins on his record and an old restraining order. He is as much a scumbag criminal as Martin was. The fact is he is guilty of poor decision making. Anyone who has any hint of intelligence knows he shouldn't have gotten out of the car.

PrometheusBound said:

The media have manufactured Zimmerman's bad reputation. To gun owners, he is a hero. Long before this incident, the media made gun owners look bad, so they will ignore your warning.

Click to expand...

He is not THIS gun owner's hero... Nor is he my villain...
There is not enough evidence for me to make that decision yet.

I haven't seen any evidence that either of them is a "scumbag criminal". I don't even see a pattern of bad judgment-- just two decent and law-abiding men having a very bad night that left one of them dead in the street.

It happens.

Blackdog said:

Actually yes he does. If he was attacked for any reason he is allowed to defend himself, period. You can yell all you like and that does not change the law or it's spirit.
:

Click to expand...

Really? You think that Treyvon is the aggressor in this situation? Yet Treyvon was not doing anything he wasn't supposed to be doing when he got reported to the police by Zimmerman. You don't see something wrong in that Zimmerman's decision to exit the vehicle rather than allowing the police to do their job?

BTW the spirit of the law is that you cannot go follow some guy you think is committing a crime, be the aggressor, and then call it self defense when that guy reacted to you following him. After all...what if he felt threatened by you following him? Do you see the problem here?

If someone was putting my head into the pavement the threat of serious and deadly injury is great. I would have shot him as well. I would have also been justified in the spirit of the law as well. What happened prior to the attack is only important in that who attacked who first. Following, calling or asking a question does not give anyone the right to attack you, period.

Click to expand...

WRONG. Just wrong. What if Treyvon felt threatened and Zimmerman didn't properly identify himself? Where does the law stand there? You have a right to shoot in self defense. That is not in question. But it is vigilantism to seek to out and stop crime. That is NOT within the scope of self defense. You become the aggressor by doing that. You clearly don't understand that. You also are NOT analyzing this from the perspective of what it means to our rights and how this incident is going to resonate. Zimmerman is no hero. He is THE shining example of what not to do.

Only to morons who like to think in terms of and make blanket statements.

Click to expand...

Only a moron would not account for those morons. Blanket statements are the media, anti-gun, and anti-self defense crowd's speciality. Or do you not watch the news?

is to bad they give CCW licences to idiots that don't know the law and jump to conclusions without all the evidence.

Click to expand...

Yea. Those idiots shoot 17 year old kids who are in the gated community of their father's fiance.

stonewall50 said:

He is NOT a hero to any gun owner who understands rational decision making. It is quite evident to me. While blackdog is to stubborn to say it openly, but it is QUITE clear that Zimmerman made a bad decision. I am not the only one who thinks that. I have had this discussion plenty too. Zimmerman's "bad reputation" was not manufactured to me either. He had run ins on his record and an old restraining order. He is as much a scumbag criminal as Martin was. The fact is he is guilty of poor decision making. Anyone who has any hint of intelligence knows he shouldn't have gotten out of the car.

Click to expand...

It is also quite evident to me you cannot read. Please point out anyplace I said he did not make a bad decision? You can't because I never said that. I said it is not illegal to follow someone, and it's not. Now you are saying they are both scumbag criminals when you obviously don't know **** about the law and the situation other than what the media is telling you.

I disagree with the law.

stonewall50 said:

Really? You think that Treyvon is the aggressor in this situation? Yet Treyvon was not doing anything he wasn't supposed to be doing when he got reported to the police by Zimmerman. You don't see something wrong in that Zimmerman's decision to exit the vehicle rather than allowing the police to do their job?

Click to expand...

I don't care because he was not told to stay in his car. It was suggested he stay in his car or not follow by the dispatcher. It was not an order, and it was not illegal in any way for him to follow Martin. What decisions he made bad or good are irrelevant as long as he did not break the law. He did not.

How many times are you going to ask the same question over and over when you have already been shown to have no clue on the matter?

stonewall50 said:

BTW the spirit of the law is that you cannot go follow some guy you think is committing a crime, be the aggressor, and then call it self defense when that guy reacted to you following him. After all...what if he felt threatened by you following him? Do you see the problem here?

Click to expand...

Yes I do have a problem. You don't even know the law. How are you going to make any kind of call? I have already shown you don't know it, don't understand it and are ready to jump to conclusions with no evidence. Sorry, but people like you and the media are the real problem here.

stonewall50 said:

WRONG. Just wrong. What if Treyvon felt threatened and Zimmerman didn't properly identify himself? Where does the law stand there?

Click to expand...

With no evidence the law says sorry no reason to arrest. What if's are for judges and jury's to consider. Considering Zimmerman has not been arrested I will side with the professionals and not the media.

stonewall50 said:

You have a right to shoot in self defense. That is not in question. But it is vigilantism to seek to out and stop crime. That is NOT within the scope of self defense. You become the aggressor by doing that. You clearly don't understand that. You also are NOT analyzing this from the perspective of what it means to our rights and how this incident is going to resonate. Zimmerman is no hero. He is THE shining example of what not to do.

Click to expand...

If Martin attacked Zimmerman and this is what the evidence so far points to, then he was defending himself. Until it becomes illegal for citizens to patrol the streets this is the way it is. You do not become an aggressor until a verbal or physical threat has been made. No evidence suggest Zimmerman was any kind of threat.

I don't have to analyze this according to rights, that is what the legislature and courts are for. Anti-gun nuts try to change gun laws at the drop of a hat, nothing is going to change that.

stonewall50 said:

Only a moron would not account for those morons. Blanket statements are the media, anti-gun, and anti-self defense crowd's speciality. Or do you not watch the news?

Click to expand...

You are just as guilty. What does this make you?

stonewall50 said:

Yea. Those idiots shoot 17 year old kids who are in the gated community of their father's fiance.

Click to expand...

:doh

No. A guy on community watch getting attacked by a 6'2 adult in the dark who then had his head smashed into the ground. That is what the evidence says. Your comment is nothing but typical hyperbole.

lunchbox said:

I still think Zimmerman ignored the 911 Dispatcher

Click to expand...

Could you explain the line of reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Muhammed said:

Could you explain the line of reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Click to expand...

Uhhh it's nothing made up, it's what he actually did.

Michael Johnson said:

Uhhh it's nothing made up, it's what he actually did.

Click to expand...

He did not ignore the dispatcher. The dispatcher suggested he should not follow Martin, it was not a command or order to be ignored.

Blackdog said:

He did not ignore the dispatcher. The dispatcher suggested he should not follow Martin, it was not a command or order to be ignored.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it wasn't a command. He still ignored the dispatcher and went after him. You questioned Muhammed on whether Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher or not, implying that it never happened when evidence shows he did, and now you're trying to argue the technicality between the dispatcher and Zimmerman.

Next.

Michael Johnson said:

Doesn't matter if it wasn't a command. He still ignored the dispatcher and went after him. You questioned Muhammed on whether Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher or not, implying that it never happened when evidence shows he did, and now you're trying to argue the technicality between the dispatcher and Zimmerman.

Next.

Click to expand...

#1 I did not question Muhammad on anything.
#2 Since I did not question Muhammad, I did not imply anything.
#3 The evidence says the dispatcher "suggested" a course of action and Zimmerman chose to follow a different course. This does not mean he ignored the dispatcher. That is unless you can read Zimmerman's mind?
#4 Now you are trying to accuse me of things I did not say or imply and I have shown your statements to be less than accurate.

Next.

Blackdog said:

#1 I did not question Muhammad on anything.
#2 Since I did not question Muhammad, I did not imply anything.

Click to expand...

The rest of your post just.......doesn't even need reading since you just lied.

eace out.

Blackdog said:

He did not ignore the dispatcher. The dispatcher suggested he should not follow Martin, it was not a command or order to be ignored.

Click to expand...

But it was advice from a professional who he had called for help. The fact that he would ignore that same advice is rather telling about Z and his motives that night.

haymarket said:

But it was advice from a professional who he had called for help. The fact that he would ignore that same advice is rather telling about Z and his motives that night.

Click to expand...

Why would a 911 dispatcher be an expert? They have no training etc. I mean it would be common sense to stop and wait for the police unless he was afraid the suspect would get away. So he made a judgement call that had little to do with any kind of expertise from a dispatcher, they are not trained police officers in any way. Neither was Zimmerman, so even though in the long run it was a bad decision, at the time it had nothing to do with ignoring anyone, but assessing the situation for himself as he was there.

Just because I don't take advice from someone does not mean I was trying to ignore it.

People are acting like somehow they new Zimmerman's intent when we don't know at all.

Michael Johnson said:

The rest of your post just.......doesn't even need reading since you just lied.

eace out.

Click to expand...

What? Please point out where I responded to Muhammad? Please point out where by questioning Muhammad I implied anything?

You really need to go back and read who I responded to before saying someone lied.

Here is the post I responded to...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/122610-florida-law-use-deadly-force-32.html#post1060380001

Interesting how Muhammad's name does not appear. I wonder why that is?

Blackdog said:

Why would a 911 dispatcher be an expert? They have no training etc. I mean it would be common sense to stop and wait for the police unless he was afraid the suspect would get away. So he made a judgement call that had little to do with any kind of expertise from a dispatcher, they are not rained police officers in any way. Neither was Zimmerman, so even though in the long run it was a bad decision, at the time it had nothing to do with ignoring anyone, but assessing the situation for himself as he was there.

Just because I don't take advice from someone does not mean I was trying to ignore it.

Click to expand...

He knows a hell of a lot more about that job than you or I do.

He rejected the advice of the expert he called. That cannot be denied. And then he killed a kid as a result. And that cannot be denied either.

If that guy had stayed in his car that night, we never would have heard of him and Martin would be alive today. And that cannot be denied either.

haymarket said:

He knows a hell of a lot more about that job than you or I do.

Click to expand...

Correction: Than you do. I am an experienced LEO and police academy graduate.

haymarket said:

He rejected the advice of the expert he called. That cannot be denied. And then he killed a kid as a result. And that cannot be denied either.

Click to expand...

Dispatchers are not experts on the law or the enforcement of law, period. You are trying to give a dispatcher expertise they do not have by training or any real world experience.

haymarket said:

If that guy had stayed in his car that night, we never would have heard of him and Martin would be alive today. And that cannot be denied either.

Click to expand...

This is probably true, but so far the evidence says he broke no law. Until it becomes a crime to make bad decisions, the evidence does not suggest any crime. It is a shame, but not a crime.