Trayvon Martin

[McWilly3]

Moreover, extrapolating from your assumptions, if Zimmerman operated within the law in his following Trayvon and Trayvon chose to assault him I still have a hard time seeing how Zimmerman is to blame, legally. Please explain.

Consider it this way. A woman leaves her work as a waitress late at night and has to walk many blocks to her car. A man is following her. Every turn she makes, he makes the same. Each time she looks back he's a little closer. She speeds up, he speeds up. Finally she looks back and he's directly behind her. The woman decides to use her pepper spray and paints him with it. Is the woman guilty of assault or justified in her action? Was the man actually intending harm or maybe she just dropped her license and the man was trying to return it?

The legal question being: Did Trayvon Martion PERCEIVE George Zimmerman as a threat? You often hear lawyers ask "and did you feel threatened or frightened by those actions or statements?" in court. The perception of the victim weighs heavily on the potential outcome.

In the above situation consider that the man following the woman is armed and shoots her dead after being pepper-sprayed. Who would be at fault then?

[amoynahan]

The man would be at fault because the Woman in this situation does not pose a credible threat.

What I think happened in the Florida case was that Martin became angry at Zimmerman for suspecting him a criminal, so he made the decision to kick Zimmerman ass, and was winning up until the point where Zimmerman shot him. A teachable lesson is not to beat up annoying people just you are physically capable of doing so. Given the evidence that's come out so far Martin would be alive today had he learned this lesson. Martin's punishment is too severe for what he did, but when his fists started flying, and he pushed Zimmerman to the ground; he lost society's protection. If this is not the way it is then why wasn't Zimmerman arrested? The Florida cops don't care about Zimmerman and are not about to lose their job and retirement for him.

[McWilly3]

The man would be at fault because the Woman in this situation does not pose a credible threat.

is pepper spray less severe than punches to the face? So we would have to go with the assumption that Martin was beating Zimmerman to death to justify shooting the kid. Regardless of what the cops did to clean him up or any medical treatment, the photos of him in no way show a guy who was being beaten that badly.

This is where FL and it's foolish "stand your ground law" comes into play. In Mass you can only use deadly force to combat deadly force.

[Cisco_Kid]

I say we kill them all.
Just nuke florida.
Problem solved!!!

[surfape]

Wouldn't you know, I just got my LSAT exam scores back in the mail.

You're operating under the assumption Martin initiated the violence. I think Zimmerman reacted poorly when Martin confronted him about the stalking. The catalyst for the entire incident is a man following someone while acting as a self-obsessed watchman. Placing Zimmerman at fault for the entire chain of events.

I've worked in the court system and/or law enforcement for over a decade. The concept of perceived threat is one I'm sure you've never witnessed being debated in open court. I have, and it easily justifies Martin's reaction.

One still has no right to assault someone for following them. If they did, one might be justified in piunching total strangers on Boylston street, "because they were following me." I guess if you were judge and jury they'd get off, too!
The person who initiated the violence is almost ALWAYS wrong. If Trayvon would have kept on walking, perhaps nothing would have happened. Zimmerman called the police which suggests he was at least trying to act in a lawful fashion.

You may have gone to law school, (who hasn't these days?) but that doesn't mean you know the difference between right and wrong. If it did, there wouldn't be so many lousy lawyers looking for work or in jail. Any idiot who can read can go to law school.

If I perceive you as a threat, can I punch you in the nose? According to your reasoning, the answer is yes.

[Chris M.]

Consider it this way. A woman leaves her work as a waitress late at night and has to walk many blocks to her car. A man is following her. Every turn she makes, he makes the same. Each time she looks back he's a little closer. She speeds up, he speeds up. Finally she looks back and he's directly behind her. The woman decides to use her pepper spray and paints him with it. Is the woman guilty of assault or justified in her action? Was the man actually intending harm or maybe she just dropped her license and the man was trying to return it?

The legal question being: Did Trayvon Martion PERCEIVE George Zimmerman as a threat? You often hear lawyers ask "and did you feel threatened or frightened by those actions or statements?" in court. The perception of the victim weighs heavily on the potential outcome.

In the above situation consider that the man following the woman is armed and shoots her dead after being pepper-sprayed. Who would be at fault then?

While your reasoning absolves Trayvon (under "stand your ground"), it does NOT make Zimmerman culpable (once again, give the assumptions previously stated, which may or may not be applicable). See it is possible for BOTH Zimmerman's and Trayvon's behavior to have been 100% within the law. Sometimes, shit just happens, for not good reason. As humans we always want to assign, motive, meaning and culpability. That is wrong. Sometimes there is no meaning. Sometimes it is just a fluke, a bad thing that happened because conditions aligned just so. That is not to say this was unavoidable, just that maybe there is nobody culpable under the law.

[nh_surfer]

You may have gone to law school, (who hasn't these days?) but that doesn't mean you know the difference between right and wrong. If it did, there wouldn't be so many lousy lawyers looking for work or in jail. Any idiot who can read can go to law school.

Statements like these make you a real jackass. McWilly provided a thoughtful post, and you belittle him personally. It's too bad that we have to put up with your endless bs on this site. I guess I should do what everyone else does on here and ignore you.

[surfape]

is pepper spray less severe than punches to the face? So we would have to go with the assumption that Martin was beating Zimmerman to death to justify shooting the kid. Regardless of what the cops did to clean him up or any medical treatment, the photos of him in no way show a guy who was being beaten that badly.

This is where FL and it's foolish "stand your ground law" comes into play. In Mass you can only use deadly force to combat deadly force.

Pepper spray won't kill you, but punches to the face can.

[surfape]

Statements like these make you a real jackass. McWilly provided a thoughtful post, and you belittle him personally. It's too bad that we have to put up with your endless bs on this site. I guess I should do what everyone else does on here and ignore you.

His post was thoughtful until he threw his "lawyer" weight around. Lawyers, as has often been proven, are frequently WRONG. Being a lawyer, even a good one (is there one?) does not automatically make one right. McWilly was postulating theories for which he had no evidence: Trayvon was justified in attacking his follower by beating his face in. There IS no evidence that Trayvon felt threatened and he sure as hell wasn't intimidated. Had he felt truly intimidated, he wouldn't have tried to beat the crap put of Zimmerman (if he did) and might still be alive.
We still don't have all the evidence, so let's not be getting the rope out for Zimmerman just yet. We saw how that played out in the Tawana Brawley case and the Duke U case.
I wonder: If Zimmerman was named Arroyo and was a black Hispanic would we even be having this discussion?

As usual, the Liberals have already rushed to judgement, something you can always count on a Liberal to do, especially where it concerns matters of race. The News networks are also complicit in this matter.

[surfape]

is pepper spray less severe than punches to the face? So we would have to go with the assumption that Martin was beating Zimmerman to death to justify shooting the kid. Regardless of what the cops did to clean him up or any medical treatment, the photos of him in no way show a guy who was being beaten that badly.

This is where FL and it's foolish "stand your ground law" comes into play. In Mass you can only use deadly force to combat deadly force.

Once again, you are wrong. How the hell are you going to pass the bar?
In Mass. as in many other states, you have the right to shoot dead someone who has entered your home illegally, for instance at 3 o'clock in the morning while you're sleeping. Even if they are unarmed. After all, what would you have to do otherwise? Ask the criminal if he intends to hurt you, or if he has a weapon? Frisk him? Call your lawyer first? Hahahahaha... That'll save you!
You better stop posting and start studying.

[nh_surfer]

As usual, the Liberals have already rushed to judgement, something you can always count on a Liberal to do, especially where it concerns matters of race. The News networks are also complicit in this matter.

What part of my earlier statement, "A lot of facts still out on this one, so hard to judge just yet...", did you not understand?

Don't confuse hypotheticals and general discussions of the stand-your-ground law, with the actual case of Trayvon Martin where many facts remain unknown.

[McWilly3]

Once again, you are wrong. How the hell are you going to pass the bar?
In Mass. as in many other states, you have the right to shoot dead someone who has entered your home illegally, for instance at 3 o'clock in the morning while you're sleeping. Even if they are unarmed. After all, what would you have to do otherwise? Ask the criminal if he intends to hurt you, or if he has a weapon? Frisk him? Call your lawyer first? Hahahahaha... That'll save you!
You better stop posting and start studying.

Wrong. In Mass you have a "duty to retreat" that is the exact opposite of "stand your ground" in FL. Yes my posts are based on MY theory behind the actual events that transpired. No one knows the truth but Zimmerman and self-preservation will always cloud his story.

I won't debate you further, it's fruitless. I'm on here to have actual discussions about things surf and nonsurf with actual surfers. Nothing is sadder than a person who uses the internet to pick fights and insult others. If you are older than 20 it's just sad.

[surfape]

Wrong. In Mass you have a "duty to retreat" that is the exact opposite of "stand your ground" in FL. Yes my posts are based on MY theory behind the actual events that transpired. No one knows the truth but Zimmerman and self-preservation will always cloud his story.

I won't debate you further, it's fruitless. I'm on here to have actual discussions about things surf and nonsurf with actual surfers. Nothing is sadder than a person who uses the internet to pick fights and insult others. If you are older than 20 it's just sad.

Wrong. You are a lousy law student. You obviously didn't read or comprehend my last post. I'll say it again, then you can go look it up: In your OWN HOME, in Mass., you do NOT have the "duty to retreat." You need to read up on the law, "lawyer."

In PUBLIC, you have to run like hell, even if the BG (bad guy) is raping your daughter and laughing about it: This is what the commies in Cambridge call "civilization."

And let's not get holier-than-thou with the insults. I've gotten more than my share of undeserved insults slung my way. And mostly by self-righteous hypocrites like you and your Liberal, bleeding-heart, commie pals.


Fuck you, "lawyer."

[ronnieC]

In Mass. as in many other states, you have the right to shoot dead someone who has entered your home illegally, for instance at 3 o'clock in the morning while you're sleeping. Even if they are unarmed.

Not so cut and dry!!! I've talked with many police officers about this issue and I've heard this time and time again: "A dead body tells no tales". That being said, if you do shoot someone and they are unarmed and survive, they could possibly sue you! It needs to be proven that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death. If you shoot an unarmed man in your house the law could actually be against you. The same police officers have told me that if you do in fact kill the person, you need to tell the police that he verbally threatened you with your life and advanced towards you.

Hell, I even have a friend who had some psycho come smashing through his front window (high on meth...scotty?). My friend has a pitbull and a german shephard and both dogs did a number on this guy. Cops came and found a knife on the guy. He said he was "just there to steal some things, not to kill" and ended up suing my friend for medical expenses. And trust me, my friend didn't get James Sokolove or some other shmuck.


Castle Doctrine

Massachusetts has a castle law that does not require a duty to retreat. Persons in Massachusetts can be criminally charged if they injure or kill an intruder. However, using force necessary to stop an offender who is reasonably believed to be intent on causing physical harm to anyone inside the residence is a justifiable defense. The statute states:

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

[nautilus]

To avoid future litigation it does seem that you have an incentive to kill, rather than injure, someone who is threatening bodily harm to you.

[Cisco_Kid]

To avoid future litigation it does seem that you have an incentive to kill, rather than injure, someone who is threatening bodily harm to you.

That, and to insure he/she doesn't try again, this time with vengeance in mind. Those laws suck.
But, who stops to consider the law when faced with an intruder?? Shoot first, ask questions second.

[ronnieC]

That is correct. Multiple law enforcement officers on local, county, and state levels have told me to shoot to kill and be prepared to make a statement that the suspect threatened to kill you. If the suspect is only injured and has no weapon, they could easily plea that they were disoriented, lost, or some other BS mistake and could possibly sue you if the right (read: WRONG) jury is selected!

[ronnieC]

A normal group of people could understand the situation (a stranger in your house at 3AM is obviously up to no good) but juries are dumb dumb dumb!!

[surfape]

Not so cut and dry!!! I've talked with many police officers about this issue and I've heard this time and time again: "A dead body tells no tales". That being said, if you do shoot someone and they are unarmed and survive, they could possibly sue you! It needs to be proven that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death. If you shoot an unarmed man in your house the law could actually be against you. The same police officers have told me that if you do in fact kill the person, you need to tell the police that he verbally threatened you with your life and advanced towards you.

Hell, I even have a friend who had some psycho come smashing through his front window (high on meth...scotty?). My friend has a pitbull and a german shephard and both dogs did a number on this guy. Cops came and found a knife on the guy. He said he was "just there to steal some things, not to kill" and ended up suing my friend for medical expenses. And trust me, my friend didn't get James Sokolove or some other shmuck.


Castle Doctrine

Massachusetts has a castle law that does not require a duty to retreat. Persons in Massachusetts can be criminally charged if they injure or kill an intruder. However, using force necessary to stop an offender who is reasonably believed to be intent on causing physical harm to anyone inside the residence is a justifiable defense. The statute states:

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

You know more about this than our resident "lawyer" McWilly3.

My firearms instructor once said if you have to shoot someone who is breaking into your home (or already in), shoot to kill, and make sure they fall down INSIDE the house.
Good advice.
Dead men tell no tales, but they also tell no LIES.