Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[mikegideon]

I agree. Saying that I don't think that you should rob that bank is also a suggestion, but when I tell the jury that I made that suggestion to you...wait and see how things turn out.

I would think that's real dependent on the quality of the defense attorney. I'm guessing Zimmerman could wind up with a good one, since his dad is a retired judge. A lot of folks could wind up looking like idiots when this is all said and done.

[CQB Elite]

State of mind and intent are elements of most criminal offenses. Everything said in the courtroom will give the jury insight.

The jury will never consider it because in Florida a dispatcher cannot give a lawful command so he didn't disobey one. No self respecting State's Attorney will bring it up because they know it raises far more questions (doubt) than it answers.

I would like to say this- I bet I'm one of the few, if not only, poster here that is is/was a certified LEO in Florida. I have testified in depos and court from Pensacola to Miami. I have worked with countless State's Attorneys on a wide variety of cases. There are good ones and bad ones. The juries in Florida are far different than those here in TN. Having said that, not even the bad ones will hang their hat on something as fragile as Zimmerman continuing to follow even after a dispatcher suggested he not.

Edited March 27, 2012 by EB-SF

[Links2k]

I am confused. Some assume that the dead kid was up to something (guilty) while giving the benefit of doubt to the shooter just because he is still alive? I guess no one ever lied to stay out of jail.

[Links2k]

I would think that's real dependent on the quality of the defense attorney. I'm guessing Zimmerman could wind up with a good one, since his dad is a retired judge. A lot of folks could wind up looking like idiots when this is all said and done.

I'm just a armchair qb. My opinions means nothing to no one but me. Even the people who are wrong will have forced this situation to be examined openly instead of swept under the rug like it appears the SPD attempted to do.

[kieefer]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

[mikegideon]

I am confused. Some assume that the dead kid was up to something (guilty) while giving the benefit of doubt to the shooter just because he is still alive? I guess no one ever lied to stay out of jail.

Up to something? I don't care, since it should matter more who attacked who. Has nothing to do with why he got shot.

[CQB Elite]

Even after 14 pages we are still no closer to a consensus. I will tell you this: one person was wrong, one was right and we will never know because none of us are either of the two.

[K191145]

No, intent to pursue/intervene. I think that is the crux of this issue when it comes to prosecution: did Zimmerman initiate confrontation? I think the prosecution can use that conversation with the dispatcher to illustrate to the jury what his intent was, and that is what led to the shooting. Just because he may have been in fear of his life doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted for starting a situation that led to the teen's death. If I find a guy twice my size and go slap him on the face I bet I'll be in fear of my life when he starts pummeling me; perhaps it makes the shoot justified but still makes me criminally liable that I caused the whole situation. I think that's where this is going when Zimmerman gets indicted.

Would a charge of criminally negligant homicide fit?

[BryanP]

Oh hey, look, that picture everyone keeps quoting has now been shown to be fake. And I have yet to see a single person who posted it acknowledge it. They just quietly ignore it and stop mentioning it.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247194/19/Fake-Trayvon-Martin-picture-circulates-on-the-web-image-actually-shows-a-different-person

[mikegideon]

Even after 14 pages we are still no closer to a consensus. I will tell you this: one person was wrong, one was right and we will never know because none of us are either of the two.

I thought there was an eye witness. Besides, this thread has been running as information comes in. The tone has changed. Once again, the "news" media was so far off base, that it has to come from other places. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave.

[mikegideon]

Oh hey, look, that picture everyone keeps quoting has now been shown to be fake. And I have yet to see a single person who posted it acknowledge it. They just quietly ignore it and stop mentioning it.

http://www.wtsp.com/...ifferent-person

I figured it was all along. That's why I didn't share it.

[CQB Elite]

Here is the Florida State Statute that contains "stand your ground". Pay particular attention to section 3.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

©â€ƒThe person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling†means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

( “Residence†means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

©â€ƒâ€œVehicle†means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

[TMF]

Would a charge of criminally negligant homicide fit?

I'm sure something along those lines; certainly nothing in the realm of first degree murder. Its not as if something like this is unprecedented. Didn't we recently have a one in Ashland City where two guys went road rage on each other and one ended up dead? I know the circumstances were different, but the fact that his actions led to the fatal altercation was a big deal.

[CQB Elite]

No, intent to pursue/intervene. I think that is the crux of this issue when it comes to prosecution: did Zimmerman initiate confrontation? I think the prosecution can use that conversation with the dispatcher to illustrate to the jury what his intent was, and that is what led to the shooting.

Just because he may have been in fear of his life doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted for starting a situation that led to the teen's death. If I find a guy twice my size and go slap him on the face I bet I'll be in fear of my life when he starts pummeling me; perhaps it makes the shoot justified but still makes me criminally liable that I caused the whole situation. I think that's where this is going when Zimmerman gets indicted.

There is nothing in FSS 775 thru 896 (FL criminal statutes) that make pursue/intervene unlawful. There is also nothing that says anything about "starting a situation" that leads to anything. These issues are best addressed in civil court not criminal. What EXACTLY would you charge Zimmerman with?

[CQB Elite]

I'm sure something along those lines; certainly nothing in the realm of first degree murder. Its not as if something like this is unprecedented. Didn't we recently have a one in Ashland City where two guys went road rage on each other and one ended up dead? I know the circumstances were different, but the fact that his actions led to the fatal altercation was a big deal.

You can't compare the two because the circumstances are very different. Road Rage is an unlawful act, following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not.

[Erik88]

We should take a poll here and see where everyone stands. Here are the facts.

1) None of us were there. No one knows what really happened except for Zimmerman and those who witnessed.

2) There is evidence to support self defense including witness testimony.

3) There is no evidence that Zimmerman sought out to kill someone.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[K191145]

I'm sure something along those lines; certainly nothing in the realm of first degree murder. Its not as if something like this is unprecedented. Didn't we recently have a one in Ashland City where two guys went road rage on each other and one ended up dead? I know the circumstances were different, but the fact that his actions led to the fatal altercation was a big deal.

I have a feeling they will charge him with something, with the state and feds involved if they don't the radicals will probably riot. If they do charge him and he's found not guilty, i'm going to avoid certain parts of Nashville and if I lived close to Memphis i'll avoid the whole city. I pretty much avoid Memphis anyway.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That could cut both ways, couldn't it? Or are you saying Zimmerman may actually have had a reason

for using deadly force. That's what he is saying and the only evidence bears it out. The problem is the

timeline. I am speculating only so bear with me. He approached Martin and asked him what he was doing,

left to go back to his truck and was jumped by Martin. After being beaten for awhile and crying for help

while they were struggling for his gun, he shot Martin.

That's Zimmerman's version from what I understand. And an eyewitness saw only a guy in a hoodie on top

after the shooting.

The problem everyone has, I think, is what happened during the conversation? What did Zimmerman say?

Did Martin get mad and jump him while Zimmerman was on the way back to his vehicle? Did a fight break

out during the conversation? I don't know. I doubt anyone does and ever will. The only one who could know

has already made his statement to the police.

I won't speculate beyond the evidence. Maybe more evidence will be credible and he will be indicted. I don't

know.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have a feeling they will charge him with something, with the state and feds involved if they don't the radicals will probably riot. If they do charge him and he's found not guilty, i'm going to avoid certain parts of Nashville and if I lived close to Memphis i'll avoid the whole city. I pretty much avoid Memphis anyway.

So you say that a jury of peers should declare him guilty just to keep from having riots? That's some justice.

I don't mean you, but it is depressing to think that.

That's the whole problem, no justice will happen because of the media raping.

Edited March 27, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

We should take a poll here and see where everyone stands. Here are the facts.

1) None of us were there. No one knows what really happened except for Zimmerman and those who witnessed.

2) There is evidence to support self defense including witness testimony.

3) There is no evidence that Zimmerman sought out to kill someone.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You're right down the road from there. I assume you're getting better info than us.

[Erik88]

You're right down the road from there. I assume you're getting better info than us.

Just get on http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ They are running 2-3 separate stories on it every day. The media bias is nauseating.

What bothers me are the people that are so quick to throw Zimmerman under the bus.

Could Zimmerman be guilty as hell? It's possible. Could Zimmerman be innocent?There is evidence to support it. Whatever the case I wish people would let it ride its course and let the courts decide. I personally don't think it's ever going to trial.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-trademark-name-20120326_1_mother-files-trademark-office-petitions

Someone please tell me. I am aching to know.

[Mr. Brooks]

Oh hey, look, that picture everyone keeps quoting has now been shown to be fake. And I have yet to see a single person who posted it acknowledge it. They just quietly ignore it and stop mentioning it.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247194/19/Fake-Trayvon-Martin-picture-circulates-on-the-web-image-actually-shows-a-different-person

First I've heard of it. Is this one better?

Or is that not him either?

[Guest RevScottie]

I'm not sure where the idea that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon comes from after listening to this 911 audio

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t875029/

The dispatcher asks him to stop and he says "OK" It would appear at that time he has lost sight of Martin. If we are to believe Zimmerman's statement it is after he hangs up the phone that Martin reappears and some kind of confrontation starts and Martin punches him in the nose knocking him to the ground. Where did the pursuit idea come from? Granted I may have missed something here....

[mikegideon]

First I've heard of it. Is this one better?

Or is that not him either?

Don't know. How about this one...