• 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!

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

Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

  • Agree

    Votes: 41 70.7%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 15 25.9%

  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • There should be no rule of law

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Total voters
    58
Excon said:
Lee, the police chief, said in a statement that the police dispatcher's "suggestion" to Zimmerman that he did not need to follow Martin "is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmermann would be required to follow."
'Stand Your Ground Law' at center of Fla. shooting - Yahoo! News​


And at one point he did stop following. But I am sure that will be ignored.

Even though the above was only a suggestion, I am also sure you will ignore that the call taker actually told Zimmerman twice, to let him know if Trayvon does anything.
Those are real instructions.

But like I said; I am sure those actually instructions will be ignored.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that Zimmerman was advised not to follow Martin, and, had he not done so, Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The bottom line is that Zimmerman was advised not to follow Martin, and, had he not done so, Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is twenty twenty. The real problem here is with the evidence we do have and what the prosecutor has shown, he broke now law under Florida statutes.

I mean the prosecutor better have more than Martins mother saying that is him screaming when an eye witness says it was indeed Zimmerman. The phone conversation and 911 tapes are also not enough to convict on anything even if taken together.

So in the end the SA must have something that is more damning that what we know of. Especially if she charged him with murder 2. If she does not have anything else, I don't see how she can win this.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Hindsight is twenty twenty. The real problem here is with the evidence we do have and what the prosecutor has shown, he broke now law under Florida statutes.

I mean the prosecutor better have more than Martins mother saying that is him screaming when an eye witness says it was indeed Zimmerman. The phone conversation and 911 tapes are also not enough to convict on anything even if taken together.

So in the end the SA must have something that is more damning that what we know of. Especially if she charged him with murder 2. If she does not have anything else, I don't see how she can win this.
Click to expand...
I agree to a point. For the evidence that has been shown, I don't see that a crime has been committed.

However, as I posted in a separate thread, Zimmerman's story just doesn't add up. I am very curious to see the ballistic report on the path of travel of the bullet. I would not be surprised to find out that Martin punched Zimmerman one time. Zimmerman fell down. It is head on the ground from that fall. And Zimmerman then shot Martin.

Was that still self-defense on Zimmermans part? I don't know.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The bottom line is that Zimmerman [highlight]was advised not to follow[/highlight] Martin, and, had he not done so, Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges.
Click to expand...
Saying, "we do not need you to do that" is not being advised not to do.
Especially coming from a "Telecommunications call taker".
Especially since it is only a suggestion.
Especially since it was only a suggestion that Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow.

As noted: Ignoring exactly what the call taker told Zimmerman to do.

What Zimmerman did at this point was not wrong.
What Zimmerman did at this point was not illegal.
What Zimmerman did at this point was not improper.
What Zimmerman did at this point was not outside the bounds of normal behavior.

Trayvon is dead because what he did was wrong.
Trayvon is dead because what he did was illegal.
Trayvon is dead because what he did was improper.
Trayvon is dead because what he did was outside the bounds of normal behavior.
Trayvon is dead because of what he himself did.
 
Chiefgator said:
I agree to a point. For the evidence that has been shown, I don't see that a crime has been committed.

However, as I posted in a separate thread, Zimmerman's story just doesn't add up. I am very curious to see the ballistic report on the path of travel of the bullet. I would not be surprised to find out that Martin punched Zimmerman one time. Zimmerman fell down. It is head on the ground from that fall. And Zimmerman then shot Martin.

Was that still self-defense on Zimmermans part? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Just a note here but Zimmerman had two gashes on the back of his from what I could see in the video. Simply falling down doesn't explain that.
 
Chiefgator said:
I agree to a point. For the evidence that has been shown, I don't see that a crime has been committed.

However, as I posted in a separate thread, Zimmerman's story just doesn't add up. I am very curious to see the ballistic report on the path of travel of the bullet. I would not be surprised to find out that Martin punched Zimmerman one time. Zimmerman fell down. It is head on the ground from that fall. And Zimmerman then shot Martin.

Was that still self-defense on Zimmermans part? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. I'd be willing to bet that he'll be acquitted, unless there is something we don't know right now. Arresting someone for murder is one thing, but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is quite another. Luckily for Zimmerman, we don't lock people up because they're probably guilty, or at least we're not supposed to.

But the fact remains, if he had followed the advice of the 911 operator, none of this would have happened at all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But the fact remains, if he had followed the advice of the 911 operator, none of this would have happened at all.
Click to expand...

Shoulda coulda woulda. It is just as possible that Martin might have gone to Zimmermans car and attacked him even if Zimmerman had stayed.

Point being that your "fact" is irrelevant considering it is not illegal to follow a person. What is relevant is did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself under the circumstances that did happen or did Zimmerman start the fight? We can through out billions and trillions of possible outcomes based on actions or non-actions that could have been taken, but in the end they are ALL just "possibilities" that don't reflect what happened. Which is all that we should judge.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Shoulda coulda woulda. It is just as possible that Martin might have gone to Zimmermans car and attacked him even if Zimmerman had stayed.

Point being that your "fact" is irrelevant considering it is not illegal to follow a person. What is relevant is did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself under the circumstances that did happen or did Zimmerman start the fight? We can through out billions and trillions of possible outcomes based on actions or non-actions that could have been taken, but in the end they are ALL just "possibilities" that don't reflect what happened. Which is all that we should judge.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible. Some things are highly unlikely, however. Unfortunately, we'll never hear Martin's side of the story.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Anything is possible. Some things are highly unlikely, however. Unfortunately, we'll never hear Martin's side of the story.
Click to expand...

Very true. I still think Occam's razor pretty much covers this one.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Anything is possible. Some things are highly unlikely, however. Unfortunately, we'll never hear Martin's side of the story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was listening in on NPR and they were talking about how most trials, on the Florida state law, usually have the victim on the stand also. I think it is going to come down to whether the Jury believes or disbelieves Zimmerman. I really hope though that they are selected VERY carefully because if one of the lynch mob, or one one for Zimmerman gets in, we will have a COMPLETELY unfair trial.

Good luck Zimmerman, unfortunately you will need it.
 
I live in Florida and I agree with the law...just like anything else, anyone that misuses or breaks the law should be charged appropriately.
I believe people have a right to defend themselves and not allowing people to defend themselves in my opinion results in the deaths of more innocent individuals than any mistakes or misuses of the law....Like zimmerman
 
lpast said:
I live in Florida and I agree with the law...just like anything else, anyone that misuses or breaks the law should be charged appropriately.
I believe people have a right to defend themselves and not allowing people to defend themselves in my opinion results in the deaths of more innocent individuals than any mistakes or misuses of the law....Like zimmerman
Click to expand...

But the question is where is this "line" drawn? There is a BIG grey area.
 
Jryan...no law is absolute and covers every nuance. In some states like New Jersey...you cant shoot and kill someone that invades your home without going through hell.
Id rather it be overkill to benefit the victims than be overkill protecting the scum...just my humble opinion
 
lpast said:
Jryan...no law is absolute and covers every nuance. In some states like New Jersey...you cant shoot and kill someone that invades your home without going through hell.
Id rather it be overkill to benefit the victims than be overkill protecting the scum...just my humble opinion
Click to expand...

Right, without arguing the point I made in another thread, I don't believe in punishment. I believe in rehabilitation and helping people with their problems. Shooting someone in the head helps no one.
 
Jryan said:
Right, without arguing the point I made in another thread, I don't believe in punishment. I believe in rehabilitation and helping people with their problems. Shooting someone in the head helps no one.
Click to expand...

Rehabilitation is for drug addicts, mentally impaired, etc...rehabilitation is not for Armed Robbers, home invaders and Murderers....comeon Jryan you understand the difference Im sure....the stand your ground law is for individuals under threat of physical harm and/or death having the right to defend themselves....like its been reported even by the special prosecutor...the martin zimmerman case is not about stand your ground and has nothing to do with that law
 
lpast said:
Rehabilitation is for drug addicts, mentally impaired, etc...rehabilitation is not for Armed Robbers, home invaders and Murderers....comeon Jryan you understand the difference Im sure....the stand your ground law is for individuals under threat of physical harm and/or death having the right to defend themselves....like its been reported even by the special prosecutor...the martin zimmerman case is not about stand your ground and has nothing to do with that law
Click to expand...

I don't think that robbers, home invaders, and murderers have much of a choice at that point in their lifestyle, so yes I do believe that they can be rehabilitated, and since I believe that they are victims of a perpetual bad life, I don't think they should be punished. Whether you believe in free will or not, you cannot deny that in the moment, the thought of not committing heinous acts never enter's a career criminal's conscious mind. So yes, I do think that humans can see the error of their ways and conform to our society; if they can't, that is what prison is for, but to not even give them a chance is morally unfair.

Also, I don't think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves; laws like these leave to much room for human misjudgment. IE, I don't think that if someone pushes you, you should then be able to respond with a bullet in their head. The appropriate action here would be to walk away...
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
except their current intended victims and any other potential victims who may otherwise have crossed their path in the future.
Click to expand...

Oh right, I like how you immediately assume that the person was in imminent danger :).
 
Jryan said:
Oh right, I like how you immediately assume that the person was in imminent danger :).
Click to expand...

If the shootee is not putting anyone in imminent danger, then there is no justification for the shooter to pull the trigger.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the shootee is not putting anyone in imminent danger, then there is no justification for the shooter to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

My question is, what "is" imminent danger? I mean, like I pointed out, you honestly can't think it justifiable to shoot someone because they pushed you.
 
Jryan said:
My question is, what "is" imminent danger? I mean, like I pointed out, you honestly can't think it justifiable to shoot someone because they pushed you.
Click to expand...

Being pushed is not grounds under the law to shoot anyone...

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

It is clearly outlined.

The only real change in the self defense laws in Florida, is that you are no longer under any obligation to retreat from the situation if you are legally within your rights to be where you are.
 
Last edited:
Jryan said:
My question is, what "is" imminent danger? I mean, like I pointed out, you honestly can't think it justifiable to shoot someone because they pushed you.
Click to expand...

Neither can I. The only justification for deadly force is to defend yourself or someone else from a real threat. If someone pushes you, unless they're pushing you over a cliff, that's no reason to shoot them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Neither can I. The only justification for deadly force is to defend yourself or someone else from a real threat. If someone pushes you, unless they're pushing you over a cliff, that's no reason to shoot them.
Click to expand...

Right, but like I said, it is very difficult to write a law that would entail every detail of every incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom