Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

I'm not so sure of that.

The problem is this is an emotional case.A young man, the racial tension, but if you take that out of the equation, it doesn't have as much weight.

Texas used to have a law, they may still, that allowed you to use lethal force to protect your property.

One night a repo man pulled up and began the process of towing away a man's car. The owner of the car took a deer rifle out and shot the tow tuck driver in the neck from his front porch. The driver drove away and lived long enough to drive about 100 yards and crashed into a tree (or something).

The police were called and as they were investigating the crime, the owner walked up, turned himself in and told them what he did. After some conversation they let him go.

This caused an outrage and 20/20 (or dateline, whoever) sent a reporter to talk to the prosecutor about the injustice of a man just doing his job getting killed. The prosecutor explained the Texas law and when asked "well what about the repo man" his response was matter of fact "well, he should have considered a different line of work".

I see this case as the same thing. Whether the stand your ground law is fair or not, it is the law. And according to at least one witness, Martin attacked Zimmerman. As I said, I know of no witnesses that said Zimmerman went after Martin other than following him thru the neighborhood, which if you think about it, is exactly the definition of what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.

yes Zimmerman had a gun but the question is would the gun become an issue had Martin not attacked Zimmerman?

As of right now, unless there is compelling evidence that says Zimmerman went after Martin, Zimmerman should not be charged.

And when asked "well what about Martin? the response should be "well, he shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman"

My point is, if you consider the witness, and now the belief that the person calling for help in the background of the 911 call is actually Zimmerman, there is no evidence that shows he went after Martin, and in fact shows that Martin went after him. These charges are in response to a mob mentality and public media surrounding this case. Of course there may be more information we don't know but I think the timing stinks as well as the idea we need a "special prosecutor" above and beyond the local jurisdiction to find the "truth" about this case.

[Bklyn]

Yeah, Texas still has that law. I didn't know about the repo incident, but I do know that shortly after the law was passed (September of 2009 or '10, iirc) a man shot two people who were robbing a neighbors house. The guy called 911, the dispatch said they were sending officers, he said "they're coming out the window, with a bag of stuff. I'm going out there." Then the dispatch did what dispatch does and told him not to. The guy said "nope, I'm going out there. Wait a second, buddy." Then you hear a screen door open, then a guy say "hello, you're dead." BOOM. The guy was arrested, indicted and found Not Guilty...because the jury interpreted the law to be you had permission to use lethal force to even protect a neighbor's property. I didn't agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is as far as the record of the court. It didn't hurt that the robbers were Mexican illegal aliens.

Anyway, to your points:

I see this case as the same thing. Whether the stand your ground law is fair or not, it is the law.

I don't think this necessarily correlates to the Stand Your Ground Law. As a matter of fact, the guy who wrote the legislation said he did not agree that it applied to this situation, given how it appears Zimmerman acted leading up to the confrontation.

And according to at least one witness, Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Fine, but you know that's not the only witness. There are others, it seems, who have a slightly different recollection and view of what happened. There were about 4 separate 911 calls and one call you can hear Martin screaming for help before the shot rang out. I've had the misfortune of being in a few fights in my life, one where I rung a dude's bell with a clean right along the jaw line and he went out. I never screamed for help once.

As I said, I know of no witnesses that said Zimmerman went after Martin other than following him thru the neighborhood, which if you think about it, is exactly the definition of what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.

Keep paying attention. I've heard things a bit different than you.

My point is, if you consider the witness, and now the belief that the person calling for help in the background of the 911 call is actually Zimmerman

Interesting. The three different reports I've come across, using two separate voice recognition experts, said that the voice screaming for help could not have been Zimmerman. That it did not match the voice over the 911 tapes (one expert) and that the person yelling for help was younger than 25 (the other expert). I'm interested to see who is lining up to say the screams were Zimmerman...and that's why it belongs in court. Again, that's why this deserves to be in court.

Of course there may be more information we don't know but I think the timing stinks as well as the idea we need a "special prosecutor" above and beyond the local jurisdiction to find the "truth" about this case.

The "special prosecutor" was brought in to insulate Sanford, a bit...because they had screwed up this case from the beginning. There are no legal experts that I have seen that believes the police or the DA handled this right initially. As a result, an independent counsel was warranted to prevent the appearance of obfuscation. None would be necessary if things would have played out like every big city DA and police chief has said they would have done (at least those willing to go on record).

Sanford's ineptitude caused the delay, it made sense to give the appearance of impartiality at that point, IMO.

[eCat]

If someone has disputed that it is Zimmerman calling for help , then that changes things for me, as well as multiple witnesses with differing viewpoints.

I'll try to find some links that discuss it.

I'm not an expert on the stand your ground law, but I can't see how following a person negates your right to invoke self defense.

The core issue to me is - would Martin be alive right now had he just kept walking to where he was going without confronting Zimmerman? If the answer is no, then clearly Zimmerman needs to be in jail. If the answer is yes, then Martin isn't an innocent victim in this case and a whole new set of questions need to be evaluated.

Many are assuming that the Sanford police dropped the ball on this, but if they looked at the evidence presented and took the law into account, and then made the decision that no law was broken, then that isn't ineptitude. And a grandstanding prosecutor clearly playing to the media and public outrage doesn't lend credibility in my eyes.

I also heard the man who wrote the stand your ground law and how he said that this was a distorted interpretation of how he meant the law to be enforced, but we don't prosecute on breaking the spirit of the law, we prosecute on breaking the letter of the law.

[Gator by God's Grace]

I'm tired of people down here packing heat, instigating situations with somebody who's unarmed, and then killing the unarmed foe when the tables get turned.

I wish there was some way to empanel one jury to hear and decide both this zimmerman case and the dooley case with similar factshttp://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cri ... co/1206308

[Gator by God's Grace]

of course, nobody has heard about the Dooley case, because the defendant is black and the unarmed victim was white.

(should he now be called a "white non-hispanic" now?)

[10ac]

exactly

[eCat]

of course, nobody has heard about the Dooley case, because the defendant is black and the unarmed victim was white.

(should he now be called a "white non-hispanic" now?)

and witnesses gave the same testimony, as well as Dooley not having a broken nose , cut or any distinguishing signs of struggle.

[Bklyn]

of course, nobody has heard about the Dooley case, because the defendant is black and the unarmed victim was white.

(should he now be called a "white non-hispanic" now?)

exactly

No one heard about Trayvon Martin for a month. No one would have heard about Trayvon Martin if not for a Twitter campaign pushing for action. You realize this happens with a lot of cases, regardless of race? The list of prosecutorial misconduct, police fuck-uppery and other evidence of judicial malfeasance goes on every single day and people are aggrieved across all racial lines. Some make the press. Some don't. It's not always about race, the same way the Natalie Holloway coverage wasn't necessarily about race.

You guys take the easy way out on here so many times. It's frustrating and shows me more than I wish I knew.

[10ac]

How Sharpton has any credibility is beyond me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Bra ... llegations

[eCat]

I don't think I'm taking the easy way out here.

Initially I was outraged when I heard about Zimmerman and Martin.

But now that I've heard more about the case I believe Zimmerman may have used poor judgement but there is probable cause that he acted in self defense.

I think the easy way out is to cave because of public outrage and just put a man on trial to keep the peace.

But what happens however if Zimmerman is found innocent and Trayvon Martin's history is brought into the public perception. I don't think that will be good for American race relations either.

Not only will finding Zimmerman innocent in a public trial validate Zimmerman's actions (whereas of now, many people in Zimmermans mindset would probably think twice about carrying a gun and confronting someone), it further enrages the community and probably prompts more people to carry weapons knowing the law will back them in a confrontation.

It might even go so far as to discourage prosecutors to go after someone who clearly was in the wrong like the Dooley case Gator mentioned.

[Bklyn]

Not you Cat. You don't...that's why I keep making my case in here on myriad topics. That post was not directed at you. I've actually said the opposite about you on here. I like the measured, thought-out opinions you drop. It helps me with my thought process and perspective on things (whether I agree with you or not).

Not to get all internet huggy on you and shit...

[eCat]

ahhh.

[aTm]

I think theres enough evidence that he murdered the guy to put him on trial. Isn't that the point of it? If the state thinks he murdered him they should try and prove it to a jury. They probably should have moved down that road immediately.

Anyway, the only thing I dont like about this kind of things is newsies editing tapes to make it more sensational, and that kid of thing. Creating the firestorm has cast serious problems with getting a fair trial, IMO. Even if Zimmerman is innocent, he would have been a lot better off getting thrown in jail immediately, released on bail, wait a couple months with no reason for outrage and then quietly get acquitted and go back to his life even over never getting indicted and have this thing snowball like it has, now his life has changed irrevocably.

[Bklyn]

I don't know what the outcome will be of the trial, but I believe a trial was necessary. If he is found Not Guilty, some will cry justice and others will not. You don't not charge because of what the verdict will bring or what the downstream impacts of future behavior will be. You charge because the state has the responsibility of protecting the rights of its citizens and if the state feels there is enough to charge someone in a commission of a crime, based on the preponderence (sp?) of the evidence, then it must.

I think there is enough to indict and take it to court. Whether there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's intent and actions were within the bounds of the law should be up to a jury.

[Bklyn]

I think theres enough evidence that he murdered the guy to put him on trial. Isn't that the point of it? If the state thinks he murdered him they should try and prove it to a jury. They probably should have moved down that road immediately.

Anyway, the only thing I dont like about this kind of things is newsies editing tapes to make it more sensational, and that kid of thing. Creating the firestorm has cast serious problems with getting a fair trial, IMO. Even if Zimmerman is innocent, he would have been a lot better off getting thrown in jail immediately, released on bail, wait a couple months with no reason for outrage and then quietly get acquitted and go back to his life even over never getting indicted and have this thing snowball like it has, now his life has changed irrevocably.

EFZ

[eCat]

well it may have been better for him but that wouldn't be enforcing the law.

"we don't think you broke the law but if we don't lock you up for a couple of months there is going to be a shit storm in the media".

again, I haven't started searching yet but there is a hole from the time that Zimmerman makes the decision to follow Martin and when Martin is shot.

Based on the 911 operator telling him not to follow him, that may very well have been as much for Zimmerman's safety as it was to protect a kid innocently walking thru a neighborhood. Zimmerman may have very well instigated a series of events that lead to this kid being shot, heck, I'll just say he did instigate it.

I have no problem if there is credible evidence that says Zimmerman drew down on Martin while he was walking or running away. The guy needs to be in jail.

But if there is evidence that Martin and Zimmerman were engaged in a struggle then what happened up until that struggle , in my eyes , is a moot point.

Would it change my mind if Zimmerman engages Martin? yea probably but a guy packing a gun, especially if he sees himself as a pseudo cop, isn't going to get into a fist fight with someone so I don't see that as a realistic scenario.

[Gator by God's Grace]

the problem is that the law enabling these people to pack heat is making them emboldened and creating confrontations that otherwise wouldnt arise.

[Gator by God's Grace]

of course, nobody has heard about the Dooley case, because the defendant is black and the unarmed victim was white.

(should he now be called a "white non-hispanic" now?)

exactly

No one heard about Trayvon Martin for a month. No one would have heard about Trayvon Martin if not for a Twitter campaign pushing for action. You realize this happens with a lot of cases, regardless of race? The list of prosecutorial misconduct, police fuck-uppery and other evidence of judicial malfeasance goes on every single day and people are aggrieved across all racial lines. Some make the press. Some don't. It's not always about race, the same way the Natalie Holloway coverage wasn't necessarily about race.

You guys take the easy way out on here so many times. It's frustrating and shows me more than I wish I knew.

dont know how you can say the media coverage of the case hasnt been about race.

[eCat]

the problem is that the law enabling these people to pack heat is making them emboldened and creating confrontations that otherwise wouldnt arise.

I agree with that and the outrage stoked by the media attention is only going to make it worse, especially if this prosecutor Marcia Clark's it up.

She's already off to a bad start with Second Degree over Manslaughter.

[Gator by God's Grace]

I think Zimmerman and Dooley cases are highly similarly and probably warrant the same outcome, even if the defendants are assumed to be telling the truth.

i think both defendants should be held either criminally or civilly liable for what happened.

the reality though is that florida's statutory law may let each guy skate on all fronts.