Posted on 03/21/2012 6:01:38 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
Florida's controversial 2005 "Stand-Your-Ground" self-defense law could make it difficult to charge a Sanford man who shot an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager to death, legal experts say.
An arrest could hinge on whether prosecutors believe that neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman acted unreasonably when he encountered Trayvon Martin, 17, whom he suspected was a prowler. A 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin.
"If he was attacked, he can stand his ground," said retired Miami-Dade prosecutor David Waksman, who is not involved in the case. "But if police say back off and we'll take care of it, he's not covered by the law."
The state self-defense law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat before using deadly force to confront an attacker. Police and prosecutors statewide have said the the law fosters a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Actually, it’s my understanding that the supposed racial slur is not audible. There is no proof of it at this time. I listened to the 911 tapes earlier, and I heard no such thing.
I would also like to point out that calling someone a coon is not an assault, nor is it a crime that warrants being assaulted, and would again like to restate that there is no proof that any such thing was even said.
Is it a crime or is it against any ordiance for a person or a neighorhood watch captain to follow a suspicious individual?
Please cite for me the anti-following ordiance that he was in violation of.
‘He was told not to follow him.’
Saying "We don't need you to" is NOT syntactically equivalent to "we forbid you".
The MSM want cities to burn over this, as a message of what happens if Obama loses.
Assuming the witness account is accurate, it seems unlikely the kid would have attacked him and been able to get him down and on top if him if he'd had the gun in his hand when it happened.
Correct, and legally correct.
Either way, the dispatchers' instruction was not a legal order, I won't speculate on why the dispatcher chose those particular words.
Zimmerman was unwise and reckless, but not criminal in exiting the truck.
In my CCW class, we were taught that an attacker does not need to be armed in order to be considered a deadly threat which allows the use of deadly force. Somebody younger and stronger than me can beat me to death. Multiple young kids can likewise be consider a sufficient threat.
If Martin punched Zimmerman and then ran, then Zimmerman would have had no continuing threat to respond to, and shooting an unarmed Martin in the back would have been damning to Zimmerman's case.
If a 17 year old, 6'2 football player started beating up on me, I would consider my life in sufficient danger to open fire. I've been mugged by younger guys. If he's old enough to enlist in the Marines, then he's no longer a child.
I tell you what, if I was Zimmerman I would be about to sue the piss out of every news organization inthe country.
Not yes, but Hell Yes!
So the wounds to Zimmerman don’t make it an open/shut case.
Absolutely, that's why a very thourough, unbiased investigation should be conducted.
Also, once (or if) Zimmerman became the aggressor (by approaching the young adult or trying to detain him) he forfeits his “self defense” reasoning.
Here, "aggressor" is the legally wrong word. Assault and battery must occur before either party's right of self defense is triggered. A simple push with no fall won't do (say many Florida judges, not me), but a punch or kick will. That will put the other party reasonably in fear of their life.
Legally, whoever swung first is the criminal.
"Approaching" is also not assault and battery, approaching a person in public without criminal intent is legal (also applies to both parties, Mr. Martin could also approach Mr. Zimmerman legally.)
Law and justice are not the same thing.
If the crowd didn’t hear the first time. May I mention Rich Jewell/ Eric Rudolph!
Richard received a few shillings.
See, I dont believe it was a crime, although I believe Zim was at fault. I've said that before, and I also said I was amenable to changing my mind if the evidence warrants. Unless we get more details about the actual encounter, we don't know.
I just received a nasty ranting robocall from this organization firing up the masses against the racist whites.
I live within 10 miles of Sanford and believe it was targeted at this area by telephone area codes.
http://www.miamiworkerscenter.org/index.php/en/about/leadership/board?view=employee&id=18
I believe this is a Communist organization or very close to being one.
Where is the outrage?
The LEFTIST MSM has always has selective coverage, and the LEFT has always had selective outrage.
Thank you for the great response. Clears a lot of things up. Question on the "agressor" and "swing first" thing. How can it be first thing? If someone comes at me with a bat, I'd attack first? Wouldn't I be alright to do so? What if a bigger guy comes at a smaller girl or kid? Couldn't they do something to protect themselves without the agressor taking the first swing? Just curious. Thanks again for the resonse.
Zimmerman was at fault precisely for what?
Incidentally, I just heard on ABC Radio News that the police chief has stepped down because “he is refusing to release the details of what prevented the arrest of Zimmerman.”
Why do you think the police chief would refuse to release those crucial details at this time?
I’m going to speculate a moment.
I suspect the chief is refusing to release those crucial details because they would show that the boy was the criminal and the black community in that county would explode.
There is absolutely no other reason to explain how Zimmerman has not been arrested other than they cannot arrest him because he was in fact the victim of Martin.
Yeah, my Norton Anti Communist popped up when I clicked on that website.
I agree that the police chief is hiding damning information about Martin. But also, a broken nose, cuts and bruises on his face, and grass stains on his back would corroborated witness testimony that Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him and calling for help.
That's enough to clearly establish self-defense against a lethal threat. End of subject.
Zimmerman was doing crimewatch patrol in his own neighborhood, had been a part of a previous arrest of burglers, and was on the phone with the police who did NOT order him to back off. Martin was not in his home neighborhood, had been suspended from school, and was apparently asked about his business by Zimmerman - who had no reason not to identify himself as neighborhood watch. Being on the phone with the cops also pretty much clears Zimmerman of intent to do heroics or break the law.
What seems to have happened is that Martin didn't like being watched, and didn't accept Zimmerman's explanation of being the neighborhood watch patrol as sufficient reason to watch him. And then, apparently, 6'3", 17 yr old football player Martin proceeded to beat the crap out of Zimmerman for daring to watch him - not knowing that Zimmerman was armed.
Like I said, end of subject. That this is being whipped up now, when the Justice Department is in the fire for arming drug gangs in Mexico to undermine gun rights in America, seems to be an awfully suspicious coincidence as well. Because in the MSM and liberals it creates their highly spinable political equation of: gun rights = murdering black children.
And the fact that so many shills for this gigantic lie are working so hard here on FR is depressing, too.
Oh yeah, and with Sheriff Joe doing full-on exposures of Obama’s illegitimacy, it’s also likely that the Chicago Machine decided a really massive wag-the-dog would come in handy right about now. So it’s a twofer - race riots wagging away from BC fraud, connected to racist slandering of gun owners as blck child murderers.
Pretty slick if you just look at the dynamics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.