• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Feds to investigate fatal shooting of Florifda teen

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
In Virginia, any person may legitimately make a claim of self-defense, so long as they evinced meaningful intent to escape or cease the altercation beforehand, and were subject to potentially deadly force even after having done so. This is true for the initial aggressor as well.

Well, this is Florida, where (-until the weak-kneed politicos in Tally begin bending over to the propoganda,which should be any moment now...) we are under NO obligation to dis-engage, flee, retreat or otherwise cower like helpless victims in some other States, provided we are some place we have every right to find ourselves.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Well, this is Florida, where (-until the weak-kneed politicos in Tally begin bending over to the propoganda,which should be any moment now...) we are under NO obligation to dis-engage, flee, retreat or otherwise cower like helpless victims in some other States, provided we are some place we have every right to find ourselves.

Do you read before you post? Are you even capable of understanding the discussion at hand?

The last few posts you've made in response to mine have been beyond ridiculous.

My post was in response to a prior poster who opined that, in no state, could a person claim self-defense after being an initial aggressor. I simply pointed out one state where this is false.

I never suggested that all self-defense claims, in Virginia or elsewhere, must first be accompanied by an attempt to retreat or avoid a conflict. I merely pointed out that an initial aggressor could still defend himself by doing so.

I also said nothing about Florida's self-defense laws, as that was unnecessary to the point I endeavored to make. I would wager a bet that every person here understood my point except for you.

As it happens, in Virginia there is no "duty to retreat" or any such. One may stand his ground and defend himself if one is not party to instigating a conflict, without evincing any intent to do anything. But that is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the post to which I was responding.

Since you bring it up, Virginia's self-defense laws are better than Florida's anyway. We didn't need some statute to stand our ground. We have centuries of common-law precedent. Not only that, but we can actually open carry. ;)

Read and think before you post. You'll appear much smarter for the effort.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Do you read before you post? Are you even capable of understanding the discussion at hand?

The last few posts you've made in response to mine have been beyond ridiculous.

My post was in response to a prior poster who opined that, in no state, could a person claim self-defense after being an initial aggressor. I simply pointed out one state where this is false.

I never suggested that all self-defense claims, in Virginia or elsewhere, must first be accompanied by an attempt to retreat or avoid a conflict. I merely pointed out that an initial aggressor could still defend himself by doing so.

I also said nothing about Florida's self-defense laws, as that was unnecessary to the point I endeavored to make. I would wager a bet that every person here understood my point except for you.

As it happens, in Virginia there is no "duty to retreat" or any such. One may stand his ground and defend himself if one is not party to instigating a conflict, without evincing any intent to do anything. But that is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the post to which I was responding.

Since you bring it up, Virginia's self-defense laws are better than Florida's anyway. We didn't need some statute to stand our ground. We have centuries of common-law precedent. Not only that, but we can actually open carry. ;)

Read and think before you post. You'll appear much smarter for the effort.


I was simply clarifying that -since this IS the FLORIDA section- that our current legislation is different from elsewhere. Your defensiveness/hyper-sensitivity to every reply undermines not only your attempted commentary, but your intended insults.
You simply cancel yourself out at every turn. Take your own advice, and get over yourself, Mary.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I was simply clarifying that -since this IS the FLORIDA section- that our current legislation is different from elsewhere. Your defensiveness/hyper-sensitivity to every reply undermines not only your attempted commentary, but your intended insults.
You simply cancel yourself out at every turn. Take your own advice, and get over yourself, Mary.

Your clarification was unnecessary and irrelevant. Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with self-defense after initial aggression, which was the topic of the post to which I was responding. If you wanted to join the discussion rather than simply attacking my post, you might have provided some example of a Florida law which has anything at all to due with defense after initial aggression. Since, you know, that would actually be relevant. Also, your tone would have been entirely less insulting (for instance, the clear implication that Virginians are "helpless victims").

As to my being "hyper-sensitive" and a "Mary" (lol, what are you, 12?), you're free to stop picking apart my posts with irrelevant rebuttals. Or, to make valid and relevant points.

If any of your last five or six responses to me took my posts at face value, I'd respond to you in kind. It's fairly clear, however, that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying, and are merely desperately looking for any reason to rebut me, rather than my posts. I have no idea why you've decided you don't like me, but I've been around the block long enough to know that trend when I see it.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Your clarification was unnecessary and irrelevant. Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with self-defense after initial aggression, which was the topic of the post to which I was responding. If you wanted to join the discussion rather than simply attacking my post, you might have provided some example of a Florida law which has anything at all to due with defense after initial aggression. Since, you know, that would actually be relevant.

As to my being "hyper-sensitive" and a "Mary" (lol, what are you, 12?), you're free to stop picking apart my posts with irrelevant rebuttals.

If any of your last five or six responses to me took my posts at face value, I'd respond to you in kind. It's fairly clear, however, that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying, and are merely desperately looking for any reason to rebut me, rather than my posts. I have no idea why, but I've been around the block long enough to know that trend when I see it.

My bad, the hyper-sensistivity/defensive routine often leads me to think Im dealing with a little girl.
And now, Im even less convinced that I'm not.

Taken in overall context of the thread and your posts within that thread, they make plenty of sense for those capable of actually grasping the big words ,as well as the little ones. (as opposed to merely googling /copy/pasting them into forums so as to sound edumicatered) in other words, even though I might qoute you, in particular, it doesnt mean everything is ABOUT YOU.
Self, Over, Get it.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
My bad, the hyper-sensistivity/defensive routine often leads me to think Im dealing with a little girl.
And now, Im even less convinced that I'm not.

Taken in overall context of the thread and your posts within that thread, they make plenty of sense for those capable of actually grasping the big words ,as well as the little ones. (as opposed to merely googling /copy/pasting them into forums so as to sound edumicatered) in other words, even though I might qoute you, in particular, it doesnt mean everything is ABOUT YOU.
Self, Over, Get it.

:rolleyes:

You're jealous of my vocabulary, now? After all, calling someone a "little girl" is unambiguously the mark of a man with a profound ability to express himself.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
:rolleyes:

You're jealous of my vocabulary, now? After all, calling someone a "little girl" is unambiguously the mark of a man with a profound ability to express himself.

Between my complete lack of sensitivity towards my fellow man, the over-sensitivity of a lot of gun-carrying "men" (entirely an assumption, that) in these forums, and the fact that I'm at work, it was the most gentle, and polite, work-friendly term I could have chosen.
lol.


(and 99% of it is entirely satirical, anyway-so try not to get too worked up)
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Between my complete lack of sensitivity towards my fellow man, the over-sensitivity of a lot of gun-carrying "men" (entirely an assumption, that) in these forums, and the fact that I'm at work, it was the most gentle, and polite, work-friendly term I could have chosen.
lol.


(and 99% of it is entirely satirical, anyway-so try not to get too worked up)

Trust me, I'm not as worked up as one might think. I just have way too much fun on the internet. I don't come across as being very "sensitive" in real life, by all accounts.

I am just not yet mature enough to suppress this instinct:

duty_calls.png
 
Last edited:

Tactical9mm

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
Marshaul,

Thank you for your reply, and I stand corrected. I should have been more specific with my assertion in my previous post.

Your reply hit the nail on the head: "One may stand his ground and defend himself if one is not party to instigating a conflict, without evincing any intent to do anything."

It APPEARS that the shooter in this incident did instigate the encounter, and did not attempt to disengage or stand-down. He followed the kid, who initially was attempting to flee the scene after having been confronted. The situation escalated into a melee as the shooter continued to press the encounter, and it became what APPEARS to be a fair fight.

The shooter was getting his behind whupped, and he made a decision to draw and use lethal force, which resulted in him shooting the unarmed kid dead.

Again, I'm not attempting to say what happened, just repeating what I'm hearing.

I am curious, however. If the above situation had gone down in Virginia with the facts known as have been stated, how would this pan out legally for the shooter?

Thanks in advance for the reply, and discussion!
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I am curious, however. If the above situation had gone down in Virginia with the facts known as have been stated, how would this pan out legally for the shooter?

Thanks in advance for the reply, and discussion!

Well, of course there may be details yet unrevealed, but from what we know, at the point Zimmerman asked the guy to stop/begged for help, he had demonstrated intent to escape conflict, and would have been within his rights to defend himself.

The question then becomes one of degree of force. To give an extreme example, one may not respond to the "force" of a small child pushing you by shooting the child in the face, as the force of a small child pushing you is not potentially deadly and does not reasonably require lethal force in self-defense. However, when you're talking about meaningful assault by a full-grown male, almost any force might be potentially deadly, depending on the circumstance (this is why it is not wise to engage in fistfights, no matter how "manly" some might think it is). If the back of Z's head was bloodied, that would seem to me to indicate potentially lethal force being used by M.

Frankly, I don't know what started it all, or what M was thinking, but when he continued to assault Z after Z was on the ground begging for help, he swung the door wide open for his being shot pursuant to a legitimate act of self-defense.

Lesson learned: stop fighting when your opponents asks you to stop or asks for help.

That little detail leaves me with essentially no sympathy for M, no matter what started it.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Trust me, I'm not as worked up as one might think. I just have way too much fun on the internet. I don't come across as being very "sensitive" in real life, by all accounts.

I am just not yet mature enough to suppress this instinct:

duty_calls.png

LMAO. exactly. lol
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Why should the shooter remain free?

There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.
There is no reason for him TO BE locked up.
the_hustleman said:
He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.
It is not known who confronted who. And, at the time of the shooting, reports from at least one eye-witness place Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him up.

the_hustleman said:
The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.
A football player on top of someone beating him up can be construed to be a 'threat of death or great bodily harm,' wouldn't you think?
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
A football player on top of someone beating him up can be construed to be a 'threat of death or great bodily harm,' wouldn't you think?

Indeed, if the reports that I am hearing are accurate, this case is a MORE clear cut (still unfortunate and sad) self defense case than one a couple of years ago here that was ruled justifiable.

A gang banger type punched a winded jogger out of nowhere who was legally carrying a .45 in a fanny pack. They struggled and the attacker never used deadly force but the jogger shot and killed him. The force of the blow and the ensuing struggle combined with the physical fatigue from running meant that there was a disparity of force and that the jogger was unable to defend himself. Therefore, deadly force was justified.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
A punch can very much be deadly force.

My opinion is that 99% of people who feel otherwise are the same people who think getting in fistfights can ever be acceptable.
 

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
Indeed, if the reports that I am hearing are accurate, this case is a MORE clear cut (still unfortunate and sad) self defense case than one a couple of years ago here that was ruled justifiable.

A gang banger type punched a winded jogger out of nowhere who was legally carrying a .45 in a fanny pack. They struggled and the attacker never used deadly force but the jogger shot and killed him. The force of the blow and the ensuing struggle combined with the physical fatigue from running meant that there was a disparity of force and that the jogger was unable to defend himself. Therefore, deadly force was justified.

It was also two against one, and he got blind-sided.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It APPEARS that the shooter in this incident did instigate the encounter, and did not attempt to disengage or stand-down.
He didn't have to. It's clear from the timeline that Martin ran away, and returned a couple of minutes later to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman made no attempt to pursue Martin when he ran. Martin's return moves him from the "victim" category to the "predator" category.
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
So let me get this right...


If Zimmerman instigates and escalates the situation and the boy attacks and then Martin continues and Zimmerman at the point of losing the fight tries to deescalate the fight after it's too late wouldn't he still be responsible.

I mean, it's reasonable to expect Zimmerman to have stood down before anything happened. Expecting someone in the middle of a fight with adrenaline coursing through their body to stop is unreasonable. Expecting that of a teenager is even more unreasonable. As the adult, the one with the gun, the one following Martin and the one that started the entire thing, he should be held to a higher standard.

In what world would instigating an attack and then when you are on the losing and then trying to get away constitute deescalation. There is a point in an encounter where deescalation is no longer possible...

"A football player on top of someone beating him up can be construed to be a 'threat of death or great bodily harm,' wouldn't you think?"

Not if Zimmerman attacked and then Martin got the best of him... Or if Martin THOUGHT Zimmerman was going to attack and got the best of him.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
In what world would instigating an attack and then when you are on the losing and then trying to get away constitute deescalation. There is a point in an encounter where deescalation is no longer possible...

In what world is continuing an attack once you've gained the upper hand reasonable?

Youth is no excuse.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for someone who continues to beat another after the other is down and out. I don't care who started it. And I don't care how much adrenaline they have coursing through their system. That youths are more likely to be ruled by their hormones is all the more reason to establish the unequivocal impropriety and unacceptability of physical altercation absent prior threat to life and limb.

If M wanted to go home that day, he should have been the one trying to get away and begging for help. Period.

With that said, this is why I argue that it is never acceptable to initiate physical altercation, except as necessary for self-defense.
 
Last edited:

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
In what world is continuing attack once you've gained the upper hand reasonable?

Youth is no excuse.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for someone who continues to beat another after the other is down and out. I don't care who started it.

With that said, this is why I argue that it is never acceptable to initiate physical altercation, except as necessary for self-defense.

If you think withdrawing from a fight is easy then when's the last time you've been in a fight?

Youth is also a very good reason. When, exactly, do teenagers have any of the reasoning or judgment skills or maturity we expect in adults?

I'm not saying Z's life wasn't in danger, a child can kill as easily as an adult.

I'm only saying Z, as an adult, he's what 28?, should have demonstrated the reasoning and judgment of an adult.

Adults are legally held to a higher standard as he should be. He should have known better.

No matter what stupidity, immaturity or unreasonableness may occur, adult behavior outweighs juvenile behavior.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
So let me get this right...


If Zimmerman instigates and escalates the situation and the boy attacks and then Martin continues and Zimmerman at the point of losing the fight tries to deescalate the fight after it's too late wouldn't he still be responsible.

I mean, it's reasonable to expect Zimmerman to have stood down before anything happened. Expecting someone in the middle of a fight with adrenaline coursing through their body to stop is unreasonable. Expecting that of a teenager is even more unreasonable. As the adult, the one with the gun, the one following Martin and the one that started the entire thing, he should be held to a higher standard.

In what world would instigating an attack and then when you are on the losing and then trying to get away constitute deescalation. There is a point in an encounter where deescalation is no longer possible...

"A football player on top of someone beating him up can be construed to be a 'threat of death or great bodily harm,' wouldn't you think?"

Not if Zimmerman attacked and then Martin got the best of him... Or if Martin THOUGHT Zimmerman was going to attack and got the best of him.
According to what police say about it, there was no evidence to call Zimmerman's account of events into question. Zimmerman said that Trayvon attacked him, as he was walking to his SUV. If that is accurate, then Trayvon was the aggressor, and knocked him down AND got over the top of him and continued to beat him.

In other words, it wasn't a fight that Zimmerman started. It was an attack on Zimmerman by Trayvon.
 
Top