Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

What are you basing this on though? You describing Zimmerman as a guy with a "hero complex" is no different than other posters describing Martin as a weed smoking thug. Neither characterization is relevant. All that's relevant is the evidence of what actually happened.

In either case, it's just an assassination of character. None of us know any of these people.

There's no evidence either way, I'm basing it off of what seems most logical given the circumstances.

Is it logical that Martin circled back and attacked Zimmerman? I don't think so.

Is it logical that a guy who was already out playing cop stopped dead in his tracks and sat twiddling his thumbs at the end of that call? I don't think so.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Where exactly have I argued otherwise?

Conversely, if he approaches a stranger in a private gated community, or in public, in a manner that causes that stranger to reasonably fear immediate harm they have not broken a single law in responding to that threat with physical force.

We don't know that Zimmerman approached Martin or got anyhwere close to him. Your filling in the facts. If Zimmerman does not get close to Martin or threaten him overtly, then the threat is not imminent. Zimmerman would also have to approach Martin in a way that did not offer reasonable escape.

Originally Posted by valo403

My position is that if you're going to be approaching people while armed, and then use that weapon in claimed self defense the onus showed fall upon you to prove the need to use deadly force, not upon the prosecution.

No. In a case where the state is attempting to take away a citizen's liberty and basic human rights, the state should always have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That principle cannot be compromised merely because it's convenient to your own sense of morality.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

We don't know that Zimmerman approached Martin or got anyhwere close to him. Your filling in the facts. If Zimmerman does not get close to Martin or threaten him overtly, then the threat is not imminent. Zimmerman would also have to approach Martin in a way that did not offer reasonable escape.



No. In a case where the state is attempting to take away a citizen's liberty and basic human rights, the state should always have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That principle cannot be compromised merely because it's convenient to your own sense of morality.

And you're not filling in the facts? Nobody knows the truth of what happened in that time period but Zimmerman.

Burden's shift all the time, even in criminal cases, so this is not unprecedented. And I'm sorry, if you want to carry a concealed weapon I think that having an increased burden of proof placed upon you in the event that you kill someone with that weapon is a completely legitimate stance. If that gives you pause, perhaps leave the gun at home. This has nothing to do with proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, it's about where the burden is placed on the use self defense as a legal defense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

There's no evidence either way, I'm basing it off of what seems most logical given the circumstances.

Is it logical that Martin circled back and attacked Zimmerman? I don't think so.

Is it logical that a guy who was already out playing cop stopped dead in his tracks and sat twiddling his thumbs at the end of that call? I don't think so.

And it can also be entirely logical to assume the other way.

that Zimmerman who wanted to be a cop was told by the cops to return to his vehicle did so to wait for the police.

And Martin circled back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Either story has its merits. But we'll never know.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And it can also be entirely logical to assume the other way.

that Zimmerman who wanted to be a cop was told by the cops to return to his vehicle did so to wait for the police.

And Martin circled back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Either story has its merits. But we'll never know.

I guess, and we certainly will never know, I just don't see the motive for Martin to circle back. He talks about being followed and wanting to get away from whoever is following him, to then circle back seems illogical. But, illogical things do happen.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I guess, and we certainly will never know, I just don't see the motive for Martin to circle back. He talks about being followed and wanting to get away from whoever is following him, to then circle back seems illogical. But, illogical things do happen.

There's nothing logical or illogical about either story. You're basing your concept of logic solely based upon what you think of Martin and Zimmerman's characters.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by valo403

I guess, and we certainly will never know, I just don't see the motive for Martin to circle back. He talks about being followed and wanting to get away from whoever is following him, to then circle back seems illogical. But, illogical things do happen.

And conversely there is little logic to continuing pursuit after you have lost someone, since there is a good chance of ambush or just wandering around lost, so the most logical thing to do is go back and wait for the cops to arrive.

[Kjesse]

Not to derail the debate, but I hope everyone here appreciates that in Canada, the result would have been at least manslaughter, and could have been 2nd degree murder. Canadian law does not have the equivalent so called "stand your ground" law, nor does it have gun rights in the constitution.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not to derail the debate, but I hope everyone here appreciates that in Canada, the result would have been at least manslaughter, and could have been 2nd degree murder. Canadian law does not have the equivalent so called "stand your ground" law, nor does it have gun rights in the constitution.

This wasn't a Stand your Ground case at all. It was self-defense and the murky Canadian law of reasonable force would possibly allow for lethal force in the case where you're afraid of having your head smashed into the concrete.

The gun law is fair point. But for proponents of the 2nd amendment, the case where a man defends himself from attacker possibly saving his life because of his gun (if that's how they want to paint this picture) isn't exactly going against their gun beliefs.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not to derail the debate, but I hope everyone here appreciates that in Canada, the result would have been at least manslaughter, and could have been 2nd degree murder. Canadian law does not have the equivalent so called "stand your ground" law, nor does it have gun rights in the constitution.

No.

This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case. "Stand Your Ground" in Florida is not a defence, it is an immunity. So if the Stand Your Ground law had been invoked, there would have been no trial.

Zimmerman got off on a straight out self-defence, the exact same we have in Canada.

You're right that you cannot carry concealed guns in Canada. However, if Zimmerman had a knife, and stabbed Martin, the result probably would have been the same in Canada. In both Canada and the US, the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Both have defences to murder/manslaughter of self-defence using lethal force where there is a reasonable and imminent belief that your life is in danger or that you may experience severe bodily harm.

This is why I think the main issue here is gun control and the ability to carry a concealed weapon. This is where the state has failed to protect its citizens, not the application of the right to self-defence.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This wasn't a Stand your Ground case at all.

Look at the history of the case. Zimmerman was not arrested initially precisely because of the "stand your ground" law. The authorities stated as such. Second, the only juror to speak out so far states that they considered that law in the jury room (rightly or wrongly):

[Juror B17]: JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right

Edit: I'll agree the reasoning the juror presented is wrong, but it clearly had an impact, first, on the initial decision to not arrest, and second, in the minds of the jurors. Had an arrest been made initially this case would not be the circus it has become.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by blankall

No.

This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case.

Maybe not by a strict reading of the law. But if you expand your comment to say that the "stand your ground" law had no impact on either the process or the outcome (which are necessarily intertwined, imho), that is incorrect.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Look at the history of the case. Zimmerman was not arrested initially precisely because of the "stand your ground" law. The authorities stated as such. Second, the only juror to speak out so far states that they considered that law in the jury room (rightly or wrongly):

[Juror B17]: JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right

They are confusing Stand your Ground as self-defense. The difference being that with self-defense you first need to at least attempt to flee if the option is available. Stand your ground says you don't. Since Zimmerman's defense contends that he was ambushed and never able to flee it had nothing to do with the Stand your Ground law. If the jurors were confused about the law that's obviously a concern but it woudn't change anything in Canada where you can use lethal force against lethal force in self-defense. The gun issue is a different story.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by blankall

In both Canada and the US, the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Both have defences to murder/manslaughter of self-defence using lethal force where there is a reasonable and imminent belief that your life is in danger or that you may experience severe bodily harm.

I agree with the above, but disagree in the implication of Zimmerman using a gun when his opponent was armed with candy from the store. The belief has to be reasonable. Whether the words are the same, in application the Canadian standard is much different.

[Kjesse]

oops

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If the jurors were confused about the law that's obviously a concern but it woudn't change anything in Canada where you can use lethal force against lethal force in self-defense. The gun issue is a different story.

You can't delink gun rights with the use of lethal defense and expect to be taken seriously. They go hand-in-hand in this case. Canadian case law is repleat with convictions where someone in a scuffle shot another without a gun, and was convicted. The use of a gun is almost prima facie going to go against you in Canada.

Edit: also, in Canada it makes a big difference if you're defending your home as opposed to being in public.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree with the above, but disagree in the implication of Zimmerman using a gun when his opponent was armed with candy from the store. The belief has to be reasonable. Whether the words are the same, in application the Canadian standard is much different.

Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head, witnesses stated they saw Martin on top "MMA" style beating Zimmerman, and forensic reports showed that Martin was on top.

The blows were hard enough to break a nose and break skin on the back of the head.

At that point, both in the USA and Canada, you are entitled to respond with lethal force. When you're talking about a blow to the back of the head, any blow can be the lethal shot. If blood is being drawn, your life is in danger. Zimmerman would not have been expected to stop and analyze just how bad the blows were either. It also has nothing to do with who was armed with what. The only relevant issue is the reasaonble belief that your life is threatened.

In Canada, the only major difference would have been that Zimmerman would have had no gun to reach for.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You can't delink gun rights with the use of lethal defense and expect to be taken seriously. They go hand-in-hand in this case. Canadian case law is repleat with convictions where someone in a scuffle shot another without a gun, and was convicted. The use of a gun is almost prima facie going to go against you in Canada.

Edit: also, in Canada it makes a big difference if you're defending your home as opposed to being in public.

Totally depends on the situation again. In most cases pulling a gun is going to turn the tables in your favor, and make you the aggressor. Please feel free to post one of these cases.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You can't delink gun rights with the use of lethal defense and expect to be taken seriously. They go hand-in-hand in this case. Canadian case law is repleat with convictions where someone in a scuffle shot another without a gun, and was convicted. The use of a gun is almost prima facie going to go against you in Canada.

Edit: also, in Canada it makes a big difference if you're defending your home as opposed to being in public.

Lethal force is lethal force. Guns make it easier, but it's far from the only situation.

A big rock near by being used to end Martin's life in Canada would be near the same result. A teenager dead and a man getting off on self-defense. Sure, gun is a gun and you can't disconnect the situation entirely, but bringing up Stand your Ground laws, that weren't brought up in the court, while patting ourselves on the back for Canadian self-defense laws, which near mirror the Florida ones in this regard, is odd.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This wasn't a Stand your Ground case at all.

According to a member of the jury, you're absolutely wrong:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/1...ur-ground.html

Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

The jurors struggled with the law and the jury instructions, said the juror, who spoke anonymously and was identified only by her court ID, B37.

“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”

Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37.

Stand Your Ground allows a law-abiding citizen to “meet force with force, including deadly force” if he reasonably feels threatened in a confrontation. The NRA-drafted law, passed by the Florida Legislature in 2005, made two major changes to homicide cases:

• It changed standard jury instructions, which previously held that a person had a duty to retreat by using “every reasonable means,” and,

• It gave prospective defendants the right to immunity from prosecution. To make the immunity determination, the courts established pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearings.

[...]

Zimmerman waived his right to the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, a pre-trial event that’s not spelled out in statute. But he was afforded the protections of Stand Your Ground, which is embedded in Florida’s self-defense laws. Its language, found in statute 766.012, was tailored to the Zimmerman trial’s jury instructions and said the following:

“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Despite the language on the jury-instruction form and B37’s comments about Stand Your Ground, some commentators have said it had nothing to do with the case because it was a standard self-defense case.

But Stand Your Ground is standard self defense in Florida.