If obama had another son...

[Codger_64]

How much if this "the stand your ground law does not apply" has to do with what the law says or even was intended to mean and how much has to do with the fact that a black teenager was killed and a bunch of angry people are marching around the State of Florida? In my mind, the CORRECT answer to this question is "we don't know if it applies or not. That is a factual question for a jury to decide after being given appropriate instructions by the trial judge."

A jury won't have to consider the "stand your ground" law and whether or not it applies if the defense does not cite the law in presenting his defense. I'm not a lawyer or a real estate developer. But I have lived in Florida.

[Preacher Man]

How much if this "the stand your ground law does not apply" has to do with what the law says or even was intended to mean and how much has to do with the fact that a black teenager was killed and a bunch of angry people are marching around the State of Florida? In my mind, the CORRECT answer to this question is "we don't know if it applies or not. That is a factual question for a jury to decide after being given appropriate instructions by the trial judge."

The order of events of that night still has to be clarified. Some information provided by the media is unreliable, but it seems that the officers who first responded to the scene wanted to arrest Mr. Zimmerman, and they were told by an ADA there would be no charges. The assumption made by most was that he was covered by the Stand Your Ground law and that is why no charges were filled. Whether this assumption is correct or not, it has been floated around enough to make some to consider Stand Your Ground as the catalyst that started this whole incident.

Politics is perception. Regardless of how erroneous these assumptions may be, they can serve to create a popular movement among a portion of the population against Stand your Ground laws. Depending how this case is handled and what public clarifications are made about Stand your Ground, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrat candidates for office in Florida make the repeal of Stand Your Ground a campaign issue for the next election.

[not2sharp]

... I wouldn't be surprised if Democrat candidates for office in Florida make the repeal of Stand Your Ground a campaign issue for the next election.

I hope that they do just that.

n2s

[timcsaw]

I hope that they do just that.

n2s

I think I know the answer to this, but I have to ask.... Is your hope based on the political damage it will do them, or is it because you disagree with Stand your Ground laws?

[timcsaw]

There is no question that Zimmerman committed homicide. He admitted it to police. His lawyer and family admit it. What is in contention is whether or not it was justifiable homicide. We have Zimmerman's word that it was. Does he have any reason to say that other than that it is true? We have witnesses, but their statements conflict time and again. So we are left with professional examination of the forensic evidence which includes the clothing of both, the 911 calls, crime scene evidence and Martin's autopsy results. What is plain to me, a layman, is that by his actions, he is removed from the "stand your ground" defense. The person who actually wrote that law agrees with me.

Good summary... On question re. my bold. IF it is found that Zimmerman's account is accurate - that he stopped following TM, and started to return to his vehicle, when TM followed and came up behind him and actually physically attacked GZ - would GZ then be protected by the Stand your Ground law at that point?

[Codger_64]

... Politics is perception. Regardless of how erroneous these assumptions may be, they can serve to create a popular movement among a portion of the population against Stand your Ground laws. Depending how this case is handled and what public clarifications are made about Stand your Ground, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrat candidates for office in Florida make the repeal of Stand Your Ground a campaign issue for the next election.

This case, whether or not the SYG law ever really becomes a component of the defense, may well have an effect on SYG laws in several other States besides Florida. I count 31 States which have similarly expanded "Castle Doctrine", including my own Tennessee. And it may not only be a Democrat partisan backlash.

[Codger_64]

Good summary... On question re. my bold. IF it is found that Zimmerman's account is accurate - that he stopped following TM, and started to return to his vehicle, when TM followed and came up behind him and actually physically attacked GZ - would GZ then be protected by the Stand your Ground law at that point?

Had GZ not pursued TM, had he stayed in his car and not followed him, his claim of self defense would be self evident, IMHO. Regardless whether or not the two pirouetted like jewelry box ballarinas once on the backside of that condo, both were on TM's ground. GZ left his ground when he exited his vehicle and began following TM who had turned his back and moved away from the suspicious GZ. "These a$$***es always get away" goes to his intent in pursuing TM. It indicates to me that it was his intent that TM (who had neither commited nor been accused of a crime) would not get away. GZ achieved his stated goal.

GZ did have a minor amount of law enforcement training. But, that I have been able to find, he had no neighborhood watch training. It was offered to neighborhood watch programs in Sanford by the Sanford PD (Or Sheriff's dept., I forget which), but the homeowner's association had not sought accreditation/training for it's members (Was GZ the "Captain" of himself? I am yet to see the mention of another watchman). His actions, reviewed by the Sheriff's Association which provides training to affiliated neighborhood watch members, were direct violations of their standards from the pursuit to the carry of a pistol.

[timcsaw]

Had GZ not pursued TM, had he stayed in his car and not followed him, his claim of self defense would be self evident, IMHO. Regardless whether or not the two pirouetted like jewelry box ballarinas once on the backside of that condo, both were on TM's ground. GZ left his ground when he exited his vehicle and began following TM who had turned his back and moved away from the suspicious GZ. "These a$$***es always get away" goes to his intent in pursuing TM. It indicates to me that it was his intent that TM (who had neither commited nor been accused of a crime) would not get away. GZ achieved his stated goal.

GZ did have a minor amount of law enforcement training. But, that I have been able to find, he had no neighborhood watch training. It was offered to neighborhood watch programs in Sanford by the Sanford PD (Or Sheriff's dept., I forget which), but the homeowner's association had not sought accreditation/training for it's members (Was GZ the "Captain" of himself? I am yet to see the mention of another watchman). His actions, reviewed by the Sheriff's Association which provides training to affiliated neighborhood watch members, were direct violations of their standards from the pursuit to the carry of a pistol.

But again, if GZ's claims are true, he was no longer the aggressor and was followed and attacked. If GZ had had his hand on the door of his car and would have been followed and attacked by TM there, could he Stand his Ground? If he'd have gotten into his car, driven back to his home, parked on the street in front of his house and TM had followed him there and attacked him in the street there, would GZ have been able to "stand his ground"?

When it comes to SYG, to me, it comes down to "who is the physical aggressor at the moment"... not "who the aggressor is/was previously if no physical contact occurred".

You can get in my face in a bar and ridicule me, try to goad me, bw belligerent toward me and then walk away, leave the bar and head to your car. IF I have followed you out of the bar, and try to physically pound on you as you get to your car, shouldn't you be able to "stand your ground" against me even though I had provoked you earlier (without physical altercation)? What if I follow you home and pound you in the street there? Am I somehow absolved of my crime because I was PO'd at something you'd done/said a few minutes ago? Would that be a reasonable defense for me to claim... "Because he pi$$ed me off" back there, I had a right to follow him where ever he went and physically attack him?"

If GZ's account is somehow supported by evidence, then he never "attacked" anyone (only followed), and was later followed himself AND physically attacked. If this is true (big if), then he had a right to stand his ground regardless of earlier, non-violent events that evening.

[jdm61]

Yes, but the Republicans have an absolute majority in both houses of the legislature and have for some time. I am talking 60% or more.

The order of events of that night still has to be clarified. Some information provided by the media is unreliable, but it seems that the officers who first responded to the scene wanted to arrest Mr. Zimmerman, and they were told by an ADA there would be no charges. The assumption made by most was that he was covered by the Stand Your Ground law and that is why no charges were filled. Whether this assumption is correct or not, it has been floated around enough to make some to consider Stand Your Ground as the catalyst that started this whole incident.

Politics is perception. Regardless of how erroneous these assumptions may be, they can serve to create a popular movement among a portion of the population against Stand your Ground laws. Depending how this case is handled and what public clarifications are made about Stand your Ground, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrat candidates for office in Florida make the repeal of Stand Your Ground a campaign issue for the next election.

[Codger_64]

But again, if GZ's claims are true, he was no longer the aggressor and was followed and attacked. If GZ had had his hand on the door of his car and would have been followed and attacked by TM there, could he Stand his Ground? If he'd have gotten into his car, driven back to his home, parked on the street in front of his house and TM had followed him there and attacked him in the street there, would GZ have been able to "stand his ground"?

When it comes to SYG, to me, it comes down to "who is the physical aggressor at the moment"... not "who the aggressor is/was previously if no physical contact occurred".

You can get in my face in a bar and ridicule me, try to goad me, bw belligerent toward me and then walk away, leave the bar and head to your car. IF I have followed you out of the bar, and try to physically pound on you as you get to your car, shouldn't you be able to "stand your ground" against me even though I had provoked you earlier (without physical altercation)? What if I follow you home and pound you in the street there? Am I somehow absolved of my crime because I was PO'd at something you'd done/said a few minutes ago? Would that be a reasonable defense for me to claim... "Because he pi$$ed me off" back there, I had a right to follow him where ever he went and physically attack him?"

If GZ's account is somehow supported by evidence, then he never "attacked" anyone (only followed), and was later followed himself AND physically attacked. If this is true (big if), then he had a right to stand his ground regardless of earlier, non-violent events that evening.

GZ did not return to his car. TM did not attack him at his car. GZ pursued TM to the point, far from his car, where the altercation took place. Bang. This a$$***e did not get away. This man whose crime was to run from a suspicious armed man who was stalking him down a street and sidewalk in the rain, in the dark, in a place that the young man had a right to be. TM likely was in fear of his life as events show he was correct to be.

[timcsaw]

GZ did not return to his car. TM did not attack him at his car. GZ pursued TM to the point, far from his car, where the altercation took place. Bang. This a$$***e did not get away. This man whose crime was to run from a suspicious armed man who was stalking him down a street and sidewalk in the rain, in the dark, in a place that the young man had a right to be. TM likely was in fear of his life as events show he was correct to be.

And if, as GZ says, he lost sight of TM and was no longer following him, then at that point, GZ was just a guy walking in the rain that TM came up on from behind and physically attacked (didn't just follow, but actually attacked). At that point, GZ has the right to "stand his ground" against a physical attack.

And this is the point that will HAVE to be proved or disproved; Who, physically attacked whom and it all boils down to that.

[not2sharp]

I think I know the answer to this, but I have to ask.... Is your hope based on the political damage it will do them, or is it because you disagree with Stand your Ground laws?

Because they would be commiting political suicide. I am not even sure that "stand your ground" applies to this case; it looks to me to be a flat out and long established matter of self-defense. Stand your ground would be more likely to apply if Zimmerman had found Martin standing in his living room at 3:00AM holding his TV set, and then shot him. Martin doesn't have to punch him in the face or beat his head into the ground to establish a threat under SYG; it is deemed to be present by the fact that Martin is uninvited, in a protected area, and doing damage to Zimmerman's property.


n2s

[Codger_64]

GZ was the agressor from the minute he exited his vehicle and gave chase. His actions caused the confrontation, quite some distance from his car, on the opposite side of the apartment buildings from his car. The facts may well prove that the aggressor became the victim. Somehow I doubt it though. Afterall, what we are discussing here are our own personal opinions. They won't affect the crime scene evidence, the audio evidence or the autopsy evidence one whit.

What could be a game changer for GZ's defense of homicide other than justifiable will be if any of the above do not jive with his story. If it is proven that he was not the one whining for help but the shooting victim. If it is proven by the bullet trajectory that they were not in the relative positions which GZ stated they were. If TM's autopsy shows that he was not engaged in a physical struggle in which he delivered life-threatening blows to GZ. If GZ's injuries indicate nothing more than he took a punch in the nose, fell and bumped his head.

Any way it goes, the situation is very problematic from a legal precident standpoint. I read this morning that Zimmerman's defense attorney has changed his mind. He now does intend to use the "make my day" law as the basis for his defense. This even before a charge has been made.

[jdm61]

As a matter of law, the "aggressor" can cease to be such under the law. If you are the aggressor and have a change of heart and try to back off and the "victim" comes after you, you are arguably no longer the aggressor and as such, entitled to defend yourself.

GZ was the agressor from the minute he exited his vehicle and gave chase. His actions caused the confrontation, quite some distance from his car, on the opposite side of the apartment buildings from his car. The facts may well prove that the aggressor became the victim. Somehow I doubt it though. Afterall, what we are discussing here are our own personal opinions. They won't affect the crime scene evidence, the audio evidence or the autopsy evidence one whit.

What could be a game changer for GZ's defense of homicide other than justifiable will be if any of the above do not jive with his story. If it is proven that he was not the one whining for help but the shooting victim. If it is proven by the bullet trajectory that they were not in the relative positions which GZ stated they were. If TM's autopsy shows that he was not engaged in a physical struggle in which he delivered life-threatening blows to GZ. If GZ's injuries indicate nothing more than he took a punch in the nose, fell and bumped his head.

Any way it goes, the situation is very problematic from a legal precident standpoint. I read this morning that Zimmerman's defense attorney has changed his mind. He now does intend to use the "make my day" law as the basis for his defense. This even before a charge has been made.

[Codger_64]

As a matter of law, the "aggressor" can cease to be such under the law. If you are the aggressor and have a change of heart and try to back off and the "victim" comes after you, you are arguably no longer the aggressor and as such, entitled to defend yourself.

But in pursueing an innocent person, running after them until you percipitate a confrontation, you are now standing on their ground, are you not? At what point do you suggest Zimmerman might have had a change of heart and decided to let the a$$***e get away? When he got a punch on the beak? GZ's ground was in his car. It did not follow him as he advanced upon the man who was running away from him, did it?

A chronology based on the times of phone calls, 911 and Martin's girlfriend's phone records and police reports.


7:11 p.m. - Zimmerman, who was in his truck, spotted Trayvon. Zimmerman called police.

7:12 p.m - A T-Mobile phone log provided by the family's attorney shows Trayvon's girlfriend called him.

7:13 - two minutes into Zimmerman's call, he tells the police operator: "S — , he's running", and chimes indicate he is opening his door.

7:15 Zimmerman hung up.

7:16 - the girlfriend's call ended when the line went dead.

7:17 - The police arrived. Trayvon was dead.

Officer Ricardo Ayala and Sgt. Anthony Raimondo attempted CPR on Trayvon until Sanford Fire Rescue arrived. A paramedic pronounced Trayvon dead at 7:30.

7:52 p.m - A time stamp on the precinct security camera video shows Zimmerman got to the police station.

One minute elapsed between Zimmerman ending his call to 911 and the girlfriend's phone call to Martin ending. One minute later the police arrived, finding martin dead. At what point do you consider that Zimmerman changed his mind and no longer became the aggressor?

[jdm61]

No, his ground is anywhere that he is lawfully. One problem that you and many others have with your argument is assuming that the law would consider his following of Mr. Martin to be the act of an "aggressor" Even if Mr. Zimmerman touched Mr. Martin, the only thing that would arise out of that would be a possible civil action for "battery" Merely following him and asking him what he was doing in the neighborhood does not give rise to any liability under the law, unless you would consider it legally reasonable for Martin to think that Zimmerman was some kind of gangbanger protecting his "turf". I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. I would argue that even if Zimmerman "harassed" Martin, if Martin escalated the encounter to the point where Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury, then he has a defense. The really interesting question is whether Zimmerman even needs to invoke the "stand your ground" defense? If Martin attacked him as he claims, then there was no opportunity to consider running, even if he was not legally obligated to do so. Stand your ground was passed because some judges had attempted to interpret the previous self defense and defense of home laws as requiring you to run away if you had the chance as determined by the judge or jury after the fact. Unlike some other state laws, the is not what the old law said, but when did that ever stop judges? The other purpose of the law was to completely bar civil lawsuits against a person who had exercised their right to self defense. This effectively raised the burden of proof in a civil case to "beyond a reasonable doubt"

But in pursueing an innocent person, running after them until you percipitate a confrontation, you are now standing on their ground, are you not? At what point do you suggest Zimmerman might have had a change of heart and decided to let the a$$***e get away? When he got a punch on the beak? GZ's ground was in his car. It did not follow him as he advanced upon the man who was running away from him, did it?



One minute elapsed between Zimmerman ending his call to 911 and the girlfriend's phone call to Martin ending. One minute later the police arrived, finding martin dead. At what point do you consider that Zimmerman changed his mind and no longer became the aggressor?

[timcsaw]

One minute elapsed between Zimmerman ending his call to 911 and the girlfriend's phone call to Martin ending. One minute later the police arrived, finding martin dead. At what point do you consider that Zimmerman changed his mind and no longer became the aggressor?

7:15:01??

[Codger_64]

7:15:01??

Then in well under a minute, GZ reversed direction from walking East on the walkway to walking West toward his vehicle, then suddenly vered left, and walked South on the walkway half the length of the townhouse to where "he and Martin confronted each other"? That is away from his vehicle. He ended his 911 call at the end of the East/West sidewalk. His vehicle was behind him to the West on that sidewalk. There was no parking on the grass along the intersecting Southbound sidewalk that led to the townhouse where TM was staying. His vehicle was not there. He was walking away from his vehicle toward Martin when they encountered each other behind the townhouse on the sidewalk. As I said, his story does not add up. I haven't seen a claim that Martin dragged him from the E/W sidewalk down the S sidewalk, have you?

[timcsaw]

Then in well under a minute, GZ reversed direction from walking East on the walkway to walking West toward his vehicle, then suddenly vered left, and walked South on the walkway half the length of the townhouse to where "he and Martin confronted each other"? That is away from his vehicle. He ended his 911 call at the end of the East/West sidewalk. His vehicle was behind him to the West on that sidewalk. There was no parking on the grass along the intersecting Southbound sidewalk that led to the townhouse where TM was staying. His vehicle was not there. He was walking away from his vehicle toward Martin when they encountered each other behind the townhouse on the sidewalk. As I said, his story does not add up. I haven't seen a claim that Martin dragged him from the E/W sidewalk down the S sidewalk, have you?

I think that every minute and second will be important in the investigation. As will actual locations of where every element was located as shown by the evidence. It only takes one or two seconds to stop, rethink your actions, and turn around to walk away and change from follower, to followed. As I've said, it will come down to who committed the first act of violence, if that can be proved.

[not2sharp]

Then in well under a minute, GZ reversed direction from walking East on the walkway to walking West toward his vehicle, then suddenly vered left, and walked South on the walkway half the length of the townhouse to where "he and Martin confronted each other"? That is away from his vehicle. He ended his 911 call at the end of the East/West sidewalk. His vehicle was behind him to the West on that sidewalk. There was no parking on the grass along the intersecting Southbound sidewalk that led to the townhouse where TM was staying. His vehicle was not there. He was walking away from his vehicle toward Martin when they encountered each other behind the townhouse on the sidewalk. As I said, his story does not add up. I haven't seen a claim that Martin dragged him from the E/W sidewalk down the S sidewalk, have you?

I don't know what happened, and it bothers me that you sound as though we already have all of the facts. Let's leave some room here for a trial and conviction. Zimmerman is pressumed innocent until it is proven otherwise. We do not have to like that, but we do have to respect it.

n2s