Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:50 pm

El Guapo wrote:I assume that Nancy Grace will have a nuanced and balanced take on this case.

she will blame the victim..black teenagers don't make for sexy victims.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:54 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Not everything is about liberals v. conservatives.
It is for some. Primarily for "them".
Trying unsuccessfully to be funny/ironic there.

I giggled.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:57 pm

Scuzz wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I assume that Nancy Grace will have a nuanced and balanced take on this case.

she will blame the victim..black teenagers don't make for sexy victims.

Yeah, that's fair enough. On the other hand it seems like public sentiment is moving swiftly against Zimmerman (apparently rightfully so), so if she comes out basically against the victim and things keep looking worse for Zimmerman, that would not look good for her.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:58 pm

She reads the news. I'm sure she'll come out on the side of the popular aspect.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:04 pm

Ugh, just did a search on Nancy Grace and found her website. All full of sunshine, puppies, body parts and murdered kids.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:15 pm

Grifman wrote:
msduncan wrote:I have no idea if Zimmerman should be prosecuted or not or what the circumstances were at the actual scene. Therefore I have no opinion on that matter and leave it to law enforcement and the DA.

However, I take great issue with the other side portraying this 17 year old as some sort of innocent child going to get skittles.

This guy was a criminal. If he weren't dead, he'd be arrested and tried as an adult for burglary of numerous homes. Just because he's under the magical age 18 doesn't make him some innocent kid that was minding his own business. We have 17 year old people that are hardened criminals. We have 17 year old people that are gang bangers, hijackers, suicide bombers, rapists, serial killers, muggers, thieves, pirates, and robbers.

He wasn't on the street trading Pokemon with someone. He was breaking and entering after doing the same to multiple residences over a period of who knows how long.

Did he deserve to die? I simply don't know because all I am going on is second hand opinion. Was this just some innocent kid? No.
Whoa, dude, better check your facts. Methinks you got the wrong kid here.

Hmm.... I think I might have confused this with another story. Let me see if I can find where and what I read again.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:21 pm

Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:27 pm

To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:30 pm

msduncan wrote:Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link

Question being, does that change your opinion on Zimmerman's actions?

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:34 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.

I wish my home was a castle. If it was I would have guards and a moat.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:42 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.

I always heard the rule of law was that if you could exit the situation without shooting anyone you were supposed to do that.

For example, you wake up at night and hear someone prowling around your living room. Since your ground floor bedroom has a window you can climb out of, you do that and call the cops. No one needs to shoot and kill anyone. If you were to elect to go out to the living room and shoot the intruder, you'd be in the wrong.

Castle doctrine I think changes it so that if someone breaks into your home, you are free to kill them without fear of the law.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:47 pm

After you put a kitchen knife in their dead hand.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:56 pm

Even though the Castle Doctrine isn't codified in Maryland, there is case law which favors the defendant when defending themselves within their home, removing the "duty to retreat" in those circumstances. Also there was a law passed protecting a defendant from civil suits if they were found not guilty in criminal court.

This is all from wikipedia so let's hope I don't have to test the accuracy of my statement.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:58 pm

dbt1949 wrote:After you put a kitchen knife in their dead hand.

My police officer friend said that if you shoot someone on your property, best to drag the victim in the house to avoid possible legal unpleasantness (see above)...

(that said, he doesn't advocate folks running around shooting suspicious folks)

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:00 pm

I imagine that if forensics were called in, they'd find out that the body was moved in short order. Then you're in for even more trouble.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:17 pm

hepcat wrote:I imagine that if forensics were called in, they'd find out that the body was moved in short order. Then you're in for even more trouble.

Yeah, my police buddy was joking somewhat because of the MD law.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:06 pm

This is very sad and very confusing. Police reports say that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, the back of his head was bloody/injured and his back was wet and he was covered with wet grass, as if there had been a struggle. Zimmerman also told the police at the time that he had been yelling for help (which would support his claim that he yelled for help, not the kid).

On the other hand, the kid only weighed about 140 pounds while Zimmerman is over 200. In addition, there seem to have been two shots fired. One shot spurred the 911 calls, but on one call, you can hear someone calling for help, and then another shot. So was Trayvon shot twice? Was it him that was calling out for help? And how did Zimmerman receive his injuries?

The problem with the Florida law is this - what if both people feel threatened? It is entirely possible that the kid felt threatened by Zimmerman with the gun and fought because he thought that was better than running and getting shot in the back. Then Zimmerman fires back after being apparently attacked. But if the kid was on the phone with this girl friend, it seems highly unlikely that he would attack while talking with her.

Sad thing, this could have all been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't gone all cowboy and waited for the police. It seems like he sought a confrontation. Since he had a gun he had the initiative and command of the situation and should have withdrawn. Very sad how it has turned out.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:09 pm

Grifman wrote: Sad thing, this could have all been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't gone all cowboy and waited for the police. It seems like he sought a confrontation. Since he had a gun he had the initiative and command of the situation and should have withdrawn. Very sad how it has turned out.

That's it in a nutshell. He was told not to pursue the person. He also went against every rule in the neighborhood watch program handbook...which he's not actually a member of in any case, in spite of what he told the police.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:11 pm

msduncan wrote:Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link

Yeah, I don't have any sympathy for those two. If I am reading the description right, the 17 year old pointed a gun at the homeowner.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:25 pm

Here's the legal question for this case, I suppose. The Florida law only protects a person who "is attacked" (so presumably, not someone who 'attacks'). Given that it's pretty well established at the least that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and initiated the confrontation, does that automatically disqualify him under the law as being an attacker?

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:38 pm

El Guapo wrote:Here's the legal question for this case, I suppose. The Florida law only protects a person who "is attacked" (so presumably, not someone who 'attacks'). Given that it's pretty well established at the least that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and initiated the confrontation, does that automatically disqualify him under the law as being an attacker?

See, this is my impression. Zimmerman initiate any direct conflict by pursuing the kid (against direct request of the authorities). He is no longer protecting any "castle", he is in pursuit of a target. He should be in lock up already.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:42 pm

Remus West wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Here's the legal question for this case, I suppose. The Florida law only protects a person who "is attacked" (so presumably, not someone who 'attacks'). Given that it's pretty well established at the least that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and initiated the confrontation, does that automatically disqualify him under the law as being an attacker?
See, this is my impression. Zimmerman initiate any direct conflict by pursuing the kid (against direct request of the authorities). He is no longer protecting any "castle", he is in pursuit of a target. He should be in lock up already.

The problem here is that Florida's law is beyond a "castle" law. It's a "stand your ground" law, which says that you don't need to retreat before using force if you are lawfully in any public place, not just in your house.

A case could be made that even if he threatened Trayvon, and even if Trayvon reasonably feared for his life, that as long as Trayvon attacked him (even without deadly force) that he had the right to use deadly force under Florida's law.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:48 pm

hepcat wrote:
Grifman wrote: Sad thing, this could have all been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't gone all cowboy and waited for the police. It seems like he sought a confrontation. Since he had a gun he had the initiative and command of the situation and should have withdrawn. Very sad how it has turned out.
That's it in a nutshell. He was told not to pursue the person. He also went against every rule in the neighborhood watch program handbook...which he's not actually a member of in any case, in spite of what he told the police.

Not that it helps the family but I would think they have one hell of a civil case against the guy.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:49 pm

It's too bad that Trayvon Martin wasn't carrying a firearm to protect himself.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:51 pm

El Guapo wrote:The problem here is that Florida's law is beyond a "castle" law. It's a "stand your ground" law, which says that you don't need to retreat before using force if you are lawfully in any public place, not just in your house.

A case could be made that even if he threatened Trayvon, and even if Trayvon reasonably feared for his life, that as long as Trayvon attacked him (even without deadly force) that he had the right to use deadly force under Florida's law.

That sounds like a horrible, horrible law. Maybe this nastiness will shine a light on just how bad it is and will prompt a review.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:51 pm

Hopefully in all 16 states that have it...

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:53 pm

hepcat wrote:Hopefully in all 16 states that have it...

Quote from a Time article written in 2005 when this law passed:

Unfortunately, this legislative absurdity is a problem for more than just Florida. A triumphant N.R.A. has vowed to get "stand your ground" laws passed in every state. "We will start with red and move to blue," LaPierre has declared, adding ominously, "Politicians are putting their career in jeopardy if they oppose this type of bill."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1ph0328oW" target="_blank

Looks like they have been fairly successful.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:53 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.

It means you have less protection from prosecution when doing so, not that you can't do it. Mostly just means you will be under more scrutiny for justifying that you "feared for you life and could not flee".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

"Castle laws" remove the duty of a person legally at home not to use deadly force on an illegal intruder if he can safely retreat instead.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:58 pm

Remind me to never visit any of the states with that law on the books.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:08 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.

No. Having a law in one state that specifically protects home owners from certain liability does not then cause states that have no such law to have a different legal outcome.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:09 pm

hepcat wrote:Remind me to never visit any of the states with that law on the books.

If you travel by car don't head east.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:10 pm

hepcat wrote:
msduncan wrote:Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link
Question being, does that change your opinion on Zimmerman's actions?

Oh yeah definitely. Unless the defense can prove that he acted in self defense where he felt his life was in mortal danger.

I also wonder why he is just now getting this scrutiny. The cops must have some reasoning, and I'm not easily won over by the racist angle people are quick to take.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:13 pm

msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:
msduncan wrote:Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link
Question being, does that change your opinion on Zimmerman's actions?
Oh yeah definitely. Unless the defense can prove that he acted in self defense where he felt his life was in mortal danger.

I also wonder why he is just now getting this scrutiny. The cops must have some reasoning, and I'm not easily won over by the racist angle people are quick to take.

Probably a question of evidence and what can be proven.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:14 pm

gameoverman wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:To clarify, I am referring to MSD's link:

"Two Florida laws make it legal for a homeowner to shoot intruders. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend their families in their own homes."

Can I assume based on that wording that it is ILLEGAL for homeowners to shoot intruders in their homes in states that do not have castle doctrine laws? Interesting.
I always heard the rule of law was that if you could exit the situation without shooting anyone you were supposed to do that.

For example, you wake up at night and hear someone prowling around your living room. Since your ground floor bedroom has a window you can climb out of, you do that and call the cops. No one needs to shoot and kill anyone. If you were to elect to go out to the living room and shoot the intruder, you'd be in the wrong.

Castle doctrine I think changes it so that if someone breaks into your home, you are free to kill them without fear of the law.

This is absolutely not true. Even without Castle doctrine, a homeowner can shoot in self defense when they feel their life is threatened. If I have a conceal carry permit and someone confronts me with a knife or gun in the street away from my home and I feel my life is in mortal danger, it would still be self defense -- ie doesn't have to be inside my home).

Now that being said, if the witness reports are accurate on this story and he chased the kid down (even if the kid had tried to break and enter)... then this would NOT be a case of self defense and thus he would be legally responsible.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:15 pm

msduncan wrote: I also wonder why he is just now getting this scrutiny. The cops must have some reasoning, and I'm not easily won over by the racist angle people are quick to take.

Then you might want to do a little more research. The police have bungled this from the get go. They've lied to the family, they've corrected a witness at least once, they bagged the boy's body and then labelled it as "John Doe" even though he had a cell phone with him, they refused to release the 911 call until they were legally forced to...it's a sickening list of incompetence. Add in some troubling incidents in the past in which they've shown preference to the relatives of their own cops and you get a very sordid picture.

I don't like bringing up racism but this screams it, to be honest.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:15 pm

I think there could be a challenge to 'reasonableness' when you actively pursue someone and put yourself in their path.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:18 pm

Grifman wrote:This is very sad and very confusing. Police reports say that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, the back of his head was bloody/injured and his back was wet and he was covered with wet grass, as if there had been a struggle. Zimmerman also told the police at the time that he had been yelling for help (which would support his claim that he yelled for help, not the kid).

On the other hand, the kid only weighed about 140 pounds while Zimmerman is over 200. In addition, there seem to have been two shots fired. One shot spurred the 911 calls, but on one call, you can hear someone calling for help, and then another shot. So was Trayvon shot twice? Was it him that was calling out for help? And how did Zimmerman receive his injuries?

The problem with the Florida law is this - what if both people feel threatened? It is entirely possible that the kid felt threatened by Zimmerman with the gun and fought because he thought that was better than running and getting shot in the back. Then Zimmerman fires back after being apparently attacked. But if the kid was on the phone with this girl friend, it seems highly unlikely that he would attack while talking with her.

Sad thing, this could have all been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't gone all cowboy and waited for the police. It seems like he sought a confrontation. Since he had a gun he had the initiative and command of the situation and should have withdrawn. Very sad how it has turned out.

As a Juror I would find it very difficult to buy a prosecutor telling me that someone with a gun pointed at them actually then reacted by attacking that person without being armed themselves. In other words it would be easier for me to buy the defense telling me that Zimmerman was attacked first, hit to the ground, and then pulled his firearm in self defense.

I just don't buy that he pulled his weapon and shot the kid, which resulted in the kid attacking him and then him shooting again after being knocked down on the ground after the first shot.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:21 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:
msduncan wrote:Hmmm... yep. I got this story confused with this one:

Link
Question being, does that change your opinion on Zimmerman's actions?
Oh yeah definitely. Unless the defense can prove that he acted in self defense where he felt his life was in mortal danger.

I also wonder why he is just now getting this scrutiny. The cops must have some reasoning, and I'm not easily won over by the racist angle people are quick to take.
Probably a question of evidence and what can be proven.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

It's also probably the vagaries of the Florida statute. Either way, they're taking it out of police hands. From what I've read, the local law enforcement has lost all credibility for their handling of it. The State's Attorney is convening a grand jury to investigate. Still, it's the Florida law that they'll have to follow.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:21 pm

Also, it's not necessarily "That [n-word] had it coming so let's do what we can to avoid getting this white guy prosecuted" racism, it could just as well be more subtle racism in the cops assuming that the black guy must have been the attacker.

In any event, it doesn't really matter why the cops have taken the approach that we have. Or at least not for this case - that could inform an appropriate review of the police's response in general. For now though, what matters is that it really looks like Zimmerman should be prosecuted.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:22 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:
El Guapo wrote:The problem here is that Florida's law is beyond a "castle" law. It's a "stand your ground" law, which says that you don't need to retreat before using force if you are lawfully in any public place, not just in your house.

A case could be made that even if he threatened Trayvon, and even if Trayvon reasonably feared for his life, that as long as Trayvon attacked him (even without deadly force) that he had the right to use deadly force under Florida's law.
That sounds like a horrible, horrible law. Maybe this nastiness will shine a light on just how bad it is and will prompt a review.

It's not a horrible law. You all are jumping to conclusions based on media hysteria about a 17 year old after hearing or buying into the story being put out by the family of the deceased. There are two sides to this story no doubt.

And the right to self defense when you feel your life is in mortal danger has always been there. This law sought to protect people that were being prosecuted for simply defending themselves.