• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman case is easy. Read the law.

2

274ina

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
641
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
776.013

(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.


And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
 
274ina said:
And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within [highlight]the public property of any municipality or county of the state.[/highlight]
Click to expand...
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you have no idea what the emboldened and highlighted portion means.
 
274ina said:
776.013

(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.
Click to expand...

So you're saying since Trayvon had a right to be there (it was his dad's neighborhood), and if he felt in fear because this guy was following him and then upon confronting the guy who was following him he saw the guy had a gun, and if he felt in fear for his safety, by this law you have copy and pasted, Trayvon would have been entitled to use deadly force rather than retreat?

I don't have a dog in the fight, but it also isn't as easy as just "reading the law".
 
Excon said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you have no idea what the emboldened and highlighted portion means.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the road(s) trayvon ran across qualify as public property.

He was in violation of that law, but it's largely a unenforced derelict law.
 
Sarcogito said:
So you're saying since Trayvon had a right to be there (it was his dad's neighborhood), and if he felt in fear because this guy was following him and then upon confronting the guy who was following him he saw the guy had a gun, and if he felt in fear for his safety, by this law you have copy and pasted, Trayvon would have been entitled to use deadly force rather than retreat?

I don't have a dog in the fight, but it also isn't as easy as just "reading the law".
Click to expand...
lol If you want to be technical, it wasn't his dads neighborhood either.

But to your point.

No! Zimmerman's known actions did not raise to the level that would have allowed Trayvon to use force, let alone deadly force.
 
vendur said:
I'm pretty sure the road(s) trayvon ran across qualify as public property.

He was in violation of that law, but it's largely a unenforced derelict law.
Click to expand...
Not in the gated community.

Secondly, the law may be written as to appear to cover such things as you are interpreting it to do so.
But it isn't meant that way at all. But that would be a long drawn out argument that I am not prepared to, nor have the desire to enter into at this time, because it isn't a violation, and is meaningless to Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.
 
Excon said:
Not in the gated community.

Secondly, the law may be written as to appear to cover such things as you are interpreting it to do so.
But it isn't meant that way at all. But that would be a long drawn out argument that I am not prepared to, nor have the desire to enter into at this time, because it isn't a violation, and is meaningless to Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...

The property there is private, but not the roads going through it.

He was breaking a law in the "jay walking" variety of offenses, ones largely ignored.
 
vendur said:
The property there is private, but not the roads going through it.

He was breaking a law in the "jay walking" variety of offenses, ones largely ignored.
Click to expand...
Not in the gated community.
Different States have different laws. I know of no state that allows it's public roads to be gated off from the public use.
Please show me Florida law saying otherwise.

And again.
The law may be written as to appear to cover such things as you are interpreting it to do so.
But it isn't meant that way at all.

But that would be a long drawn out argument that I am not prepared to, nor have the desire to enter into at this time, because it isn't a violation, and is meaningless to Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.
 
Last edited:
Florida's Manslaughter law covers Zimmerman's actions, as he pursued & then killed a juvenile.
 
274ina said:
776.013

(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.


And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your balloon, but he wasn't on "the public property of any municipality or county of the state." He was on private property. If he were in the police station? You might have a case.

This case is filled with nuances. It's not cut-and-dried by any means.
 
Thunder said:
Florida's Manslaughter law covers Zimmerman's actions, as he pursued & then killed a juvenile.
Click to expand...
Still can't get your definitions straight I see.
The was no pursuit, only following.
He will not be convicted of Mans laughter either.
 
Thunder said:
bull****.

he pursued TM in his car and then on foot.

you can't follow someone that you have lost sight of, and yet he still continued on.

that's a pursuit.
Click to expand...

Again, nuance.

If I am following someone to keep them in my line of sight, I am not pursuing. The act of pursuit means, "I'm trying to catch him." My common sense tells me this is not what GZ was trying to do. He was keeping an eye on him -- perhaps to see what he would do next -- or to be able to tell the LEOs exactly where he was when they arrived. Two very different things.
 
MaggieD said:
Again, nuance.

If I am following someone to keep them in my line of sight, I am not pursuing. The act of pursuit means, "I'm trying to catch him." My common sense tells me this is not what GZ was trying to do. He was keeping an eye on him -- perhaps to see what he would do next -- or to be able to tell the LEOs exactly where he was when they arrived. Two very different things.
Click to expand...

an angry act of following someone and then trying to see where they went..because you think they are a criminal, is a pursuit.
 
Thunder said:
an angry act of following someone and then trying to see where they went..because you think they are a criminal, is a pursuit.
Click to expand...
That is so absurd.
No it isn't.


And no Zimmerman wasn't angry.
Frustrated, yes. Angry, no.
 
Thunder said:
hey, if YOU can read his mind...then so can I.
Click to expand...
I wasn't reading his mind. His words and the way they were spoken say frustration. Not anger.
 
That it was a gated community does not necessitate that 1.) the road still is owned by government and considered government property, 2.) that because it is "private" property in terms of ownership that it does not quality as "public" property being open to the public and 3.) the sidewalk - a "public" place by government easement.

People can be arrested for "public intoxication" even if on the sidewalk in front of a business - ie "privately owned" but made "public" by government easement for a public sidewalk.

More correctly to say is it is a law that is not enforced. However, it may well be that Trayvon was technically committing a misdemeanor by having on a "hood."

But that statutes does something else - something persuasive in the direction of the defense. The mere existence of the statute indicated that the government views wearing a hood as dangerous and facilitating illegal activity. It supports that wearing a hood is a legitimate factor in a person sensing someone is acting suspiciously. The defense should definitely raise the statute at the trial for that reason if on other.
 
Thunder said:
no, his words & the way they were spoke says anger.
Click to expand...

You say potatoe and he says potatah. Irrelevant either way. Since GZ didn't say "anger" towards TM, it is irrelevant and it would give no basis for fear by TM.
 
joko104 said:
That it was a gated community does not necessitate that 1.) the road still is owned by government and considered government property, 2.) that because it is "private" property in terms of ownership that it does not quality as "public" property being open to the public and 3.) the sidewalk - a "public" place by government easement.

People can be arrested for "public intoxication" even if on the sidewalk in front of a business - ie "privately owned" but made "public" by government easement for a public sidewalk.

More correctly to say is it is a law that is not enforced. However, it may well be that Trayvon was technically committing a misdemeanor by having on a "hood."

But that statutes does something else - something persuasive in the direction of the defense. The mere existence of the statute indicated that the government views wearing a hood as dangerous and facilitating illegal activity. It supports that wearing a hood is a legitimate factor in a person sensing someone is acting suspiciously. The defense should definitely raise the statute at the trial for that reason if on other.
Click to expand...

I'll bet dollars to donuts the ordinance in question refers to publicly owned buildings and property. Otherwise, the ordinance could simply (and more clearly) read "Hoodies cannot be worn in public off your own private property." And that's certainly not true.

At any rate, at least here in Illinois, if a community is "gated," the roads are owned by the homeowner's association. In rare instances, the village/city in question may maintain the roads (very unusual), but the association pays a separate fee to the government body. Most all of them pay private plowers, etc. to maintain their roads. They are not public.
 
274ina said:
776.013

(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.


And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
Click to expand...

He had the hood on because it was raining. You guys reach new levels of desperation every day to demonize TM.

You also completely fail to understand the law or purposefully ignored the part stating when someone instigates a situation they cannot claim self defense, or in the very least, are disqualified from SYG. Omara can have the hearing as the law requires it but it will be a waste of time.
 
Furiounova said:
He had the hood on because it was raining. You guys reach new levels of desperation every day to demonize TM.

You also completely fail to understand the law or purposefully ignored the part stating when someone instigates a situation they cannot claim self defense, or in the very least, are disqualified from SYG. Omara can have the hearing as the law requires it but it will be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Wrong....

Even *if* Z was the antagonist

Z would still be justified in shooting M under Florida law if he could not free himself and feared he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom