17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[philip964]

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_geor ... _wmain.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Photo of back of Zimmerman's head taken by police right after they arrived. (caution graphic)

Obviously Zimmerman did this to himself in the few minutes before police arrived to concoct an alibi for the racially motivated shooting. wink, wink.

[speedsix]

...hurry...a good rain's headed your way...left here at about 7:30...

...I yelled about that before all the debate about the encounter took over...if Z had made his phone call and continued on to the store(since he wasn't on duty) instead of playing cop...none of this would have happened...a cop would have come out and looked around and maybe shined a light...and discouraged any mopery...and Z could have gotten his chips and picante sauce and had a pleasant evening...now, his life will never be the same...regardless of the outcome of the trial...he did it to himself...

[speedsix]

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_geor ... _wmain.jpg

Photo of back of Zimmerman's head taken by police right after they arrived. (caution graphic)

Obviously Zimmerman did this to himself in the few minutes before police arrived to concoct an alibi for the racially motivated shooting. wink, wink.

...and we're supposed to put stock in a photo that ABC news is supposed to have posted???... http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-martin ... 3POGfV0Ryc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... not in this lifetime...as to your theory...stranger things have been done...much stranger...

[Keith B]

It still boils down to who was the aggressor. If Zimmerman's story is accurate and he had lost sight of Martin, then Martin came and attacked him, he would be justified defending himself. If Zimmerman was the aggressor with Martin and started the altercation, then Martin would have had the right to defend himself and even if he was whipping Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would NOT have a right to self defense.

This will all have to come out in the trial before we maybe know the truth.

[speedsix]

...agreed about the criminal case...which never would have happened if Z had minded his own business...

[sjfcontrol]

It still boils down to who was the aggressor. If Zimmerman's story is accurate and he had lost sight of Martin, then Martin came and attacked him, he would be justified defending himself. If Zimmerman was the aggressor with Martin and started the altercation, then Martin would have had the right to defend himself and even if he was whipping Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would NOT have a right to self defense.

Well, not quite.

PC 9.31(b)(4) states that the use of force is not justified...

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or

So, even if Zimmerman DID provoke the attack, he is still justified to defend himself if he clearly communicates his intent to break off the encounter, and Martin continues to bash his skull against the sidewalk. I would think that his cries for help (assuming it WAS Zimmerman's cries) would constitute such communications. Clearly he could not physically abandon the encounter while being sat on and beaten.

[sjfcontrol]

...agreed about the criminal case...which never would have happened if Z had minded his own business...

As I've stated before, there are MANY things that various people could have done that would have prevented the event. Saying it's Zimmerman's fault for not minding his own business (debatable) doesn't make any more sense than blaming Martin for it because he got himself kicked out of school. Or blaming the school's no-tolerance drug policy. Either of those would have prevented the event, too. The "what if's" are irrelevant. The fact is that both people were where they were entitled to be.

[Keith B]

So, even if Zimmerman DID provoke the attack, he is still justified to defend himself if he clearly communicates his intent to break off the encounter, and Martin continues to bash his skull against the sidewalk. I would think that his cries for help (assuming it WAS Zimmerman's cries) would constitute such communications. Clearly he could not physically abandon the encounter while being sat on and beaten.

It doesn't just automatically switch. Martin would have had to totally understand that Zimmerman was TRULY deescalating and retreating. Just because Martin was on top of him and he yells 'OK, you got me, let me up', Martin does NOT have to stop if he still perceives that Zimmerman will be a threat if he ceases. Maybe Zimmerman was just trying to get him to stop so he could get the upper hand again? I had several that I went ot arrest that would stop fighting and say they gave up and then start fighting again when I went to put the cuffs on them. And, if Zimmerman had the gun in his hand, then Martin would have been able to still perceive him as a threat and continue to bash his skull until he dropped the gun or Martin was able get the gun and be sure the threat has been stopped.

You left off the most important piece I posted that basically covers every speculation we are making

This will all have to come out in the trial before we maybe know the truth.

[sjfcontrol]

So, even if Zimmerman DID provoke the attack, he is still justified to defend himself if he clearly communicates his intent to break off the encounter, and Martin continues to bash his skull against the sidewalk. I would think that his cries for help (assuming it WAS Zimmerman's cries) would constitute such communications. Clearly he could not physically abandon the encounter while being sat on and beaten.

It doesn't just automatically switch. Martin would have had to totally understand that Zimmerman was TRULY deescalating and retreating. Just because Martin was on top of him and he yells 'OK, you got me, let me up', Martin does NOT have to stop if he still perceives that Zimmerman will be a threat if he ceases. Maybe Zimmerman was just trying to get him to stop so he could get the upper hand again? And, if Zimmerman had the gun in his hand, then Martin would have been able to still perceive him as a threat and continue to bash his skull until he dropped the gun or Martin was able get the gun and be sure the threat has been stopped.

You left off the most important piece I posted that basically covers every speculation we are making

This will all have to come out in the trial before we maybe know the truth.

Well, I left that off because I have no issue with it...

[57Coastie]

It still boils down to who was the aggressor. If Zimmerman's story is accurate and he had lost sight of Martin, then Martin came and attacked him, he would be justified defending himself. If Zimmerman was the aggressor with Martin and started the altercation, then Martin would have had the right to defend himself and even if he was whipping Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would NOT have a right to self defense.

Well, not quite.

PC 9.31(b)(4) states that the use of force is not justified...

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or

So, even if Zimmerman DID provoke the attack, he is still justified to defend himself if he clearly communicates his intent to break off the encounter, and Martin continues to bash his skull against the sidewalk. I would think that his cries for help (assuming it WAS Zimmerman's cries) would constitute such communications. Clearly he could not physically abandon the encounter while being sat on and beaten.

We either have many experts on Florida law here, or we have many who think Texas law is the law throughout the world.

Jim

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.—John F. Kennedy

[sjfcontrol]

It still boils down to who was the aggressor. If Zimmerman's story is accurate and he had lost sight of Martin, then Martin came and attacked him, he would be justified defending himself. If Zimmerman was the aggressor with Martin and started the altercation, then Martin would have had the right to defend himself and even if he was whipping Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would NOT have a right to self defense.

Well, not quite.

PC 9.31(b)(4) states that the use of force is not justified...

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or

So, even if Zimmerman DID provoke the attack, he is still justified to defend himself if he clearly communicates his intent to break off the encounter, and Martin continues to bash his skull against the sidewalk. I would think that his cries for help (assuming it WAS Zimmerman's cries) would constitute such communications. Clearly he could not physically abandon the encounter while being sat on and beaten.

We either have many experts on Florida law here, or we have many who think Texas law is the law throughout the world.

Jim

Yes, I was examining it from the point-of-view of Texas law.

[Keith B]

We either have many experts on Florida law here, or we have many who think Texas law is the law throughout the world.

Jim

Correct Jim. There is not such wording in the Florida law as to abandonment of the agressor. Here is the portion relative to defense in the Zimmerman/Martin case highlighted below

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
(b) 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
(b) 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
(c) The 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.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

[speedsix]

...agreed about the criminal case...which never would have happened if Z had minded his own business...

As I've stated before, there are MANY things that various people could have done that would have prevented the event. Saying it's Zimmerman's fault for not minding his own business (debatable) doesn't make any more sense than blaming Martin for it because he got himself kicked out of school. Or blaming the school's no-tolerance drug policy. Either of those would have prevented the event, too. The "what if's" are irrelevant. The fact is that both people were where they were entitled to be.

...getting kicked out of school or having a no-drug policy did not precipitate anything that happened that day...the sun came up that day, too...but only one who wasn't willing to assign responsibility for poor choices would use that kind of example...Z CLEARLY did what I said he did...and if he'd just been a good citizen and made the phone call then left...there would have been no encounter...what he chose to do in following and playing the sleuth/cop/whatever put him on a collision path with M...when he exited his vehicle to follow, he ordered up trouble...and got it...

[sjfcontrol]

...agreed about the criminal case...which never would have happened if Z had minded his own business...

As I've stated before, there are MANY things that various people could have done that would have prevented the event. Saying it's Zimmerman's fault for not minding his own business (debatable) doesn't make any more sense than blaming Martin for it because he got himself kicked out of school. Or blaming the school's no-tolerance drug policy. Either of those would have prevented the event, too. The "what if's" are irrelevant. The fact is that both people were where they were entitled to be.

...getting kicked out of school or having a no-drug policy did not precipitate anything that happened that day...the sun came up that day, too...but only one who wasn't willing to assign responsibility for poor choices would use that kind of example...Z CLEARLY did what I said he did...and if he'd just been a good citizen and made the phone call then left...there would have been no encounter...what he chose to do in following and playing the sleuth/cop/whatever put him on a collision path with M...when he exited his vehicle to follow, he ordered up trouble...and got it...

As usual, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe the "what if's" are irrelevant. What happened, happened. Any number of things in the chain-of-events would have prevented it. Placing blame on that basis is nonsense. The only thing that matters is who first broke the law.

[speedsix]

...you'd have to debate that with my Momma...who's a whole lot wiser than you or I...she'd tell me "if you hadn't have been where you shouldn't have been, you wouldn't be in trouble"...seems pretty wise to me...if you can't admit that if he'd done either what his NW training/regulations said to do(and not do) or not done what the dispatcher told him not to do (and he said OK to)...there would have been no opportunity for EITHER to "first break the law"...it's pointless to continue...so I won't...