• 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.

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
Have you ever noticed all the bad guys are the salt of the earth when they get killed ? They supported their family and kept the charities full with help and money ? alright enough of the sarcasm . If things went down as the man says they did and the witness is correct than yes he acted properly , if not than he is no better than the criminals he was suppose to look out for ! There is no in between in the matter . B][/B]
From what I reade Tray was picking flowers before he was shot.

A little so-called 'news':

"The official with knowledge of the investigation says Zimmerman's arrest is also expected soon." http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges-coming-trayvon-martin-death-184138994.html
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,693
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
I did not see this coming. Either the PA was swayed by public opinion or there is some facts not seen by me that points in the direction of an unjustified shooting.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
I did not see this coming. Either the PA was swayed by public opinion or there is some facts not seen by me that points in the direction of an unjustified shooting.
I will tell you this: when I picked up my attorney after my shooting, one of the first things he outlined was that it could turn into a public battle in the paper, that prosecutors are elected, and are subject to pressure--I thought to myself: so much for charging me with a crime because I broke the law, instead I might be dragged through the system because I happen to shoot a person during an election year.

I should mention that Zimmerman is the test-case in Florida; for good or ill. A certain writer that posts on this page every now and then said it right: don't be a test-case.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm not in the least surprised.

Not that this would ever actually happen, but basically the best thing a prosecutor could do to someone in Zimmerman's circumstance is to charge him and take it to court, but don't actually win the case. Keep it an inexpensive, one-day affair. Let a jury acquit the man. Take the steam out of the would-be lynch-mobbers, and let Zimmerman move on with his life.

But this pretty much had to go to trial, politically speaking. While a legal system makes a big fuss about its, well, laws and protocols, you have to keep in mind what its real purpose is. It's just too bad that Zimmerman will in all likelihood have to go through the whole deal now even if he's innocent.

These are the perils of self-defense. This could happen to any of us. My advice, laws permitting: mind you own business, carry a voice recorder when out and about, and open carry.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
I'm not in the least surprised.

Not that this would ever actually happen, but basically the best thing a prosecutor could do to someone in Zimmerman's circumstance is to charge him and take it to court, but don't actually win the case. Keep it an inexpensive, one-day affair. Let a jury acquit the man. Take the steam out of the would-be lynch-mobbers, and let Zimmerman move on with his life.

But this pretty much had to go to trial, politically speaking. While a legal system makes a big fuss about its, well, laws and protocols, you have to keep in mind what its real purpose is. It's just too bad that Zimmerman will in all likelihood have to go through the whole deal now even if he's innocent.

These are the perils of self-defense. This could happen to any of us. My advice, laws permitting: mind you own business, carry a voice recorder when out and about, and open carry.
I take issue with President Obama injecting his views into the case. Hopefully the twelve will be immune to public opinion, and stick to the evidence.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I take issue with President Obama injecting his views into the case. Hopefully the twelve will be immune to public opinion, and stick to the evidence.
Indeed. It was not the President's place to do so.

Keep in mind, though, this President has already publicly declared a person guilty before a trial, at least once that I know of. Been there, done that.
 
Last edited:

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,233
Location
WA
It's being broadcast everywhere I look.
Zimmerman is being charged. All the headlines I see say he's being charged but the articles don't state the charges.

Poor guy is being screwed so bad!

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any: (a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


Give me a break! Which one of these, or both will be the charge (s), "Aggravated stalking" that would be a stretch since he broke off from following when told. And "Murder of another human being" what is there to show "perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another"
His volunteering as block captain, I think not. His watching over the neighborhood, I think not. His calling 911, I think not. This filing in my IMO is to appease the radicals (terrorist's) that threaten with violence if social justice is not served up.
 
Last edited:

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,085
Location
, ,
and of course.. I just love how a Hispanic man kills a black man and it's A) Automatically racially motivated.. and B) THE WHITE MANS FAULT..
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Yeah, I mean, it sucks that this has become a media circus. If he's innocent, he's unlikely to be treated fairly.

Then again, life isn't fair. And self-defense isn't a game. I have a hard time actually feeling sorry for Zimmerman. As I've said: mind your own business. Should you be forced to defend yourself, you want everything possible in your favor. This means no wannabe-cop trolling around "investigating" people for not committing any crimes.

I submit that if you behave like Zimmerman, expect to put put through the ringer. It isn't right and it isn't wrong, what it is is predictable.
 

dr_g

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
1
Heya, 1245A, greetings back atcha.

Yes, HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) is now the received view in SD situations of nearly any type involving non-LEOs. Here it is again, for those who might have somehow missed it:


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

It has always been found to apply. Always.

Although Mr. Zimmerman has failed to utilize the wisdom of HPCSD, the information released so far has not conclusively determined that he is guilty of a crime.

Here is the pertinent statue wording:

The new law codified in Florida Statutes 776.013(3)(2006) states:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This new law expands upon Florida's preexisting castle doctrine and permits one to stand their ground anywhere. Florida Statutes 776.032(1) then holds in pertinent part:

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...

(http://www.hessingerlaw.com/Articles/Self-Defense-and-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law.aspx)

All Zimmerman has to do is articulate how he reasonably believed that a skinny 17 year old with a bag of Skittles and a soft drink constituted a threat of death or great bodily harm. If he can do that, he should be OK, although it may cost him a bundle in legal fees.

If Zimmerman cannot show a reasonable belief that Martin was a threat to his life/limb, then he is in for a very rough time with the criminal justice system, including the federal level.

Either way, HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense clearly applies.

The key to this case seems to be the substance and completeness of the investigation that Sgt. Anthony Raimondo performed after the shooting. Unfortunately, Raimondo doesn't have a stellar track record as far as thoroughly investigating controversial assaults (see Justin Collison case). And Sanford PD is not exactly the most competent LEA out there. It has history.
The original source link moved here
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,605
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Welcome, first post to seven year olde thread and your supplied link “cannot be shown”

Cheers...
Try this:
Let me add this:
The United States Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan, in Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895) stated that:

"The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury." (my emphasis)

Did you catch that? The USSC said you are not obligated to retreat.

The English doctrine, that a party assaulted must flee as far as he can before he resists, has no foundation in human nature. The true position is this: A sudden quarrel does not justify the intentional killing of the adversary, unless in self-defense.

“RIGHT TO DEFEND LIFE” Florida: “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.”
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
I think old George got kicked off a dating site recently.

He did nothing wrong shooting travon years, ago. But he let them destroy his life anyway.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Article.

What do you think? Do you think the neighborhood watch guy took appropriate action?

I've been a neighborhood watch block captain twice, and can tell you firsthand that confrontation isn't a part of the description, unless absolutely necessary to protect life and life. Since he was in a vehicle and the kid was walking, his life and limb had no need of being protected, at least not with a firearm. Perhaps an accelerator pedal i.e. "drive away from an undesirable situation." I can't see how it's possible this is self-defense.
I started this, and am here to tell you my views on this quickly changed after March 18, 2012, but with factual information trickling in through mudstream media's blast of spins, it was difficult to pin anything down until long after the trial was over.

First, Zimmerman had just as much right to be walking around the complex as anyone, including Martin.

Second, Zimmerman should never have followed Martin. If Martin had had a gun, Zimmerman would likely have been dead.

Third, Martin's death was indeed a tragedy, but it's still Martin's fault, as one just doesn't go around slamming another's head against a concrete sidewalk and expect to get away with it.

Fourth, once Zimmerman found himself in that situation, he was perfect justified in shooting Martin.

Fifth, while the encounter was avoidable, that doesn't make Zimmerman responsible for Martin's death. One has a reasonable expectation that others in society will behave in a lawful manner, and there was nothing in Martin's actions to indicate otherwise until the moment he attacked Zimmerman.

Would I have followed Martin? I may have circled the block once, cell phone in hand, but I never would have gotten out of the car or even approached Martin, even while in a car.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
That said, Color of Law, I like both your reference to the SCOTUS decision (saved in case I ever need it - hopefully never) as well as your comment on Zimmerman himself. It seems he has a penchant for finding himself in trouble.
 
Top