Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[Gravekeeper]

Well, to be bluntly honest, who was on top of who is totally irrelevant to the case at this point.

[Duelist925]

Well, to be bluntly honest, who was on top of who is totally irrelevant to the case at this point.

Not necessarily. If it can be proved the kid was on top, it could add to a "Self defense" plea.

"He was on top of me, wailing away your honour, I couldn't get away, so I had to shoot him!"

I think that defense is bs, but it might be juuust enough to get by in court.



This depends, of course, on them being able to prove that one or another was on top tho. So far, neither is particularly provable.

[Gravekeeper]

Not necessarily. If it can be proved the kid was on top, it could add to a "Self defense" plea.

No, it can't. Zimmerman did not have injuries consistent with any sort of life threatening situation and he negated self defence entirely by following and then chasing the kid. In this situation, its actually the victim that had full right to self defence and would have been legally justified beating the tar out of Zimmerman, frankly.

Florida self defence law only allows lethal force to be used against lethal force. Not being popped in the nose once. Florida's stand your ground law likewise does not apply. This did not occur in Zimmerman's home or his vehicle.

And thats only if you actually buy Zimmerman's story at all ( a story he's already changed and which directly contradicts 911 tapes ). When new evidence is pointing to Zimmerman just straight up executing the victim after a brief scuffle not during.

[draggar]

No, it can't. Zimmerman did not have injuries consistent with any sort of life threatening situation and he negated self defence entirely by following and then chasing the kid. In this situation, its actually the victim that had full right to self defence and would have been legally justified beating the tar out of Zimmerman, frankly.

<devils advocate>Pointing a gun at someone won't leave any injuries but could be considered life threatening.</devils advocate>

But yes, following (chasing?) someone is not self defense.

Florida self defence law only allows lethal force to be used against lethal force. Not being popped in the nose once. Florida's stand your ground law likewise does not apply. This did not occur in Zimmerman's home or his vehicle.

I think this is where a lot of confusion is - this is NOT SYG but still legal. If someone is threatening your life or someone else's (and it is credible) you CAN take lethal action against them no matter where you are. If I see a robbery going on and the robber has a gun pointed at the cashier I CAN pull out my gun and fire at them but any collateral damage that I directly cause (I miss and hit the cashier) I am responsible for.

If I shoot and kill the robber I'm sure the police will take me in for questioning and confiscate my gun for a little while but as long as a cooperate and the story holds I won't be charged with anything.

But - I do not have to take action if I think the robber is just going to take some cigarettes and lottery tickets and run away then by best course of action is to stay out of it and be a damn good witness.

As for SYG - it was intended for home defense (or your place of business). If the cashier pulled out a gun and fired then it is SYG.

Zimmerman has no grounds to claim SYG.

[lordlundar]

At this point I'm wondering if Martin had actually punched Zimmerman at all or if Zimmerman scuffed himself up after the shooting. The way local law enforcement handled this it's entirely possible.

[lupo pazzesco]

That's because Republicans don't just love guns for the sake of guns. They like them for self-defense, hunting, and all sorts of things. But "I like guns" is still not going to fly as a defense for shooting someone. Republicans can tell that blatant of a lie.

There's nothing wrong with liking guns for those reasons. They just don't want people to take their rights away because some irresponsible idiot misuses them.

I think I didn't write correctly what I was trying to say, and for that I do apologize. I think I just let train of thought run without laying down the tracks first, as it were. I'm well aware that Republicans are very much pro-gun, and not just for the sake of liking them. However, I think I was trying to emphasize, they are also very much "defend me and mine" when it comes to the issue. I was thinking that in light of the circumstances, and the various articles and evidence gathered, the fact that those who are very much for using deadly force when required are in fact arguing Zimmerman went way out of bounds is telling.

I guess I was trying to say, that Republicans know he is full of it, even though in the past they would strongly argue for him, stating he'd only exercised necessary lethal force, as is his right under the second amendment. I hope that makes more sense, sorry if I was unclear before.

At this point I'm wondering if Martin had actually punched Zimmerman at all or if Zimmerman scuffed himself up after the shooting. The way local law enforcement handled this it's entirely possible.

While that is a possibility, there are witnesses who called 911, who said they stepped outside after the shot, and saw Zimmerman standing over Martin, with his hands over his head. So I guess self-injury is possible, but I'm also thinking it's possible Martin may have popped him in the face, hoping to distract him while trying to get away.

[Duelist925]

No, it can't. Zimmerman did not have injuries consistent with any sort of life threatening situation and he negated self defence entirely by following and then chasing the kid. In this situation, its actually the victim that had full right to self defence and would have been legally justified beating the tar out of Zimmerman, frankly.

Florida self defence law only allows lethal force to be used against lethal force. Not being popped in the nose once. Florida's stand your ground law likewise does not apply. This did not occur in Zimmerman's home or his vehicle.

And thats only if you actually buy Zimmerman's story at all ( a story he's already changed and which directly contradicts 911 tapes ). When new evidence is pointing to Zimmerman just straight up executing the victim after a brief scuffle not during.

I don't disagree with anything you said--frankly, I think the guys full of shit. But if Zimmerman is charged, he just needs to prove that he reasonably feared for his life. If he stated he panicked while the kid was on top of him, wailing away, it might be enough for a judge or jury to buy it.

I'm not saying his life was in danger. Fuck, I think the guys a friggan waste of air, and his story is about as credible as a pink tiger.

But, if its provable that the kid was on top, he might be able to convince a judge or jury that he reasonably feared for his life.

Courts have made stupider rulings, after all. >.<

Again tho, this would rest on such a thing being provable, which at this point, it really isn't,. so it probably wouldn't come up.

[crashhelmet]

Geraldo Rivera decided to chime in about this...

Youtube Link

"I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon's death as George Zimmerman was." - Geraldo Rivera

Does he blame a woman's clothing choices for rape too?

[Ree]

Does he blame a woman's clothing choices for rape too?

I don't think what Geraldo has said compares at all with blaming a rape victim for her clothing choices.

I think what he is saying is that certain demographics are known for certain clothing choices, and so stereotypes are formed.

In this case, many black urban youths or even gangs choose to wear the style of clothing that Martin was wearing that night -specifically a hoodie.

Geraldo is saying that Zimmerman looked at the clothing choice and automatically assumed the kid was up to no good, whether that was because an assumption was made about race, or whether he associated the clothing choice with a troublemaker.

[Greenday]

I think what he is saying is that certain demographics are known for certain clothing choices, and so stereotypes are formed.

In this case, many black urban youths or even gangs choose to wear the style of clothing that Martin was wearing that night -specifically a hoodie.

I don't know about Florida or Canada, but at least in my region of the country, wearing a hoodie is typical for anyone college aged or younger.

[Ree]

But in the region where this occurred, that stereotype could be true.

Where I live, a hoodie is just a piece of clothing that keeps one warm and doesn't make any statement at all.

Everybody wears them.

In fact, on my way home from work tonight, I saw at least 4 groups of high school aged students along the way, and probably 95% of them were wearing a hoodie.

My mind did not immediately race to the assumption that they were out to terrorize the neighbourhood.

[Andara Bledin]

But, if its provable that the kid was on top, he might be able to convince a judge or jury that he reasonably feared for his life.

The only problem with this is that if Martin were on top of him when he fired, he would have blood on his own clothing, and Martin would not have been face-down on the grass.

There is nothing as presented that gives any reasonable impression that Martin was aggressive in any manner. The only damage Zimmerman suffered is more likely Martin defending himself from an unknown assailant who was following him, first in a car, and then on foot.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

But in the region where this occurred, that stereotype could be true.

Where I live, a hoodie is just a piece of clothing that keeps one warm and doesn't make any statement at all.

Everybody wears them.

In fact, on my way home from work tonight, I saw at least 4 groups of high school aged students along the way, and probably 95% of them were wearing a hoodie.

My mind did not immediately race to the assumption that they were out to terrorize the neighbourhood.

I thought I read in some reports that it had been raining that day, or even during the time it happened. Why can't the hoodie be a justifiable article of clothing for the weather?

And my reference to rape and women's clothing is Geraldo goes on to say that you mothers can't let their kids go out dressed like that because people could assume they're going to be a thug. He's saying Zimmerman was right to question his intentions because he was a black kid wearing a hoodie. Trayvon should've expected to be harassed because of what he was wearing. There have been others that have said "She was asking for it" because of what a rape victim was wearing.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't think what Geraldo has said compares at all with blaming a rape victim for her clothing choices.

I think what he is saying is that certain demographics are known for certain clothing choices, and so stereotypes are formed.

Honestly, I don't see how this is any different.

He asked to get followed and shot because he was wearing a hoodie is as much victim-blaming as the other.

^-.-^

[draggar]

Even ZImmerman's lawyer says it's not a SYG case:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

He's saying it is self-defense case.