Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

the irony is that in both cases, the victims, if they were still alive could also use the "stand your ground law" as their defense.

[Bklyn]

Yep @ Gator.

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.

Really? I see that as more possible. He's got a burner in his jacket pocket, he's out of his car following a kid (who sees him, but has no idea who it is...just that some dude in an SUV is following and now out his car) and the kid turns around.

-"Stop, what are you doing here?"
-"Fuck you, who are you a perv or something, following me"
-"Where do you live and what are you doing out here?"

The teen walks up to him (no gun is brandished yet), maybe gets in his face, maybe pushes him and now the dude feels threatened. He reaches to pull out his gun and the struggle/altercation begins. The dude has never been in any real scuffle, or had to pull out the 9 that he took to the range a bunch of times in a heated scenario. It doesn't go as smoothly as his Clint Eastwood mind drew up and the kid has a drop on him, he stumbles back and falls on the sidewalk. Now, he's really panicked and the kid is standing over top of him and the kid is looking to smack around this perv. Scuffle a few more seconds, then the gun is seen.

Screams for help.

POW!

It's totally plausible to me. If the dude was a cop, military officer or had some other field training, then I would not expect a fist fight to start off the festivities. A schlup with a pistol? Easily see how he loses control of the situation then feels he needs to use deadly force.

[Bklyn]

the irony is that in both cases, the victims, if they were still alive could also use the "stand your ground law" as their defense.

Yepper. I thought of that too.

[Bklyn]

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.

The media coverage has focused on the racial aspect of this, for good measure, IMO. What I was saying was that it's not SOLELY because of race that this is even getting traction. I don't believe that the media is covering this only because the kid was black and the accused was white(ish, heh). I think the media is covering it because it's sensational. The post I took issue with made it seem like only whites shooting blacks get traction, while last year we stayed glued in on a white girl accused of killing her white child. Sensationalism sells soap, and I was (am) contending that it is intellectually lazy to just say "no one would talk about this if it wasn't a white man killing a black kid." It just leads people down a fools errand of discussing whether Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson should have been there, instead of whether a crime was committed.

[eCat]

Yep @ Gator.

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.

Really? I see that as more possible. He's got a burner in his jacket pocket, he's out of his car following a kid (who sees him, but has no idea who it is...just that some dude in an SUV is following and now out his car) and the kid turns around.

-"Stop, what are you doing here?"
-"Fuck you, who are you a perv or something, following me"
-"Where do you live and what are you doing out here?"

The teen walks up to him (no gun is brandished yet), maybe gets in his face, maybe pushes him and now the dude feels threatened. He reaches to pull out his gun and the struggle/altercation begins. The dude has never been in any real scuffle, or had to pull out the 9 that he took to the range a bunch of times in a heated scenario. It doesn't go as smoothly as his Clint Eastwood mind drew up and the kid has a drop on him, he stumbles back and falls on the sidewalk. Now, he's really panicked and the kid is standing over top of him and the kid is looking to smack around this perv. Scuffle a few more seconds, then the gun is seen.

Screams for help.

POW!

It's totally plausible to me. If the dude was a cop, military officer or had some other field training, then I would not expect a fist fight to start off the festivities. A schlup with a pistol? Easily see how he loses control of the situation then feels he needs to use deadly force.

yea, I see it the same way. And again, I'm not expert here but the stand your ground law pretty much says "hey, if someone comes up and pushes you down and is about to kick your ass, if you feel threatened, you can shoot him". I've heard some lawyers say that because he was told to stay in the car , the stand your ground law doesn't apply, but I just don't see how. Everyone agrees that Zimmerman didn't leave the car with the intent to shoot the kid.

The fact that he is this pseudo cop absolutely has alot to do with it because a cop can differentiate between a potential ass kicking and a situation turning potentially lethal. A cop understands that the occasional punch in the mouth goes with the job.

So to me, the outrage should be tied to what Gator is saying,that Florida has a law that emboldens people to escalate force in the name of self defense. Because of that law, based on my limited information, the only way I see Zimmerman going to jail, is if it proved there wasn't a struggle. And not just jail but even going to trial. I have to believe unless there is some compelling piece of evidence beyond conflicting eye witness information that judge would consider whether the state even has enough to prove that self defense *didn't* occur, but with the media coverage, I don't see a judge taking taking this away from a jury trial.

[Bklyn]

Well, I can agree that he did not leave the car with that intent (hence the M2), but I think things are grey enough to warrant a trial. I'm no SYG expert, obviously, but I've heard enough people say that GZ should not be protected by it. That's enough for me to advocate bringing it to trial and letting it get aired in court.

For the police to not bag evidence on Martin, to not notify the kid's parent's for 3 days and hold him as a John Doe in the morgue, to not check his phone, to not speak to the person who he was speaking to when this first went down, to drug test the kid but not Zimmerman is flagrant (and even let him go with only his statement as evidence, no work to verify his account independently). GZ may well get off because the physical evidence is so thin. This happened in February, so there is little that can be done to acquire the evidence that would have been there that night on the scene.

It was a royal fuck up by the police and I believe a trial made sense from the jump and the DA and police were being lazy...and they would have gotten away with it if people didn't keep pushing the story until the wider media latched on.

[eCat]

clearly they made some mistakes. They didn't run toxicology on Zimmerman and several other things. But its not like they let Zimmerman walk that night. He was detained, and then released.

I can admit they probably had their minds made up, hence why they didn't treat all witnesses reports with the same scrutiny. I just think they heard enough beyond Zimmerman to determine the guy shot the kid at point blank during a struggle.

[sardis]

I have been withholding judgment on this case because I haven't really felt like I've gotten all the facts, I still don't. I get alot of info from both sides of the political media, but not a whole lot from the investigation itself.

I was hoping I would hear more from the prosecutor's announcement yesterday, but I heard very little details. She says she based her decision on the facts of the case, but didn't lay out those specific facts were that compelled her to charge. We'll have to take her word for it, I guess. I don't think she was grandstanding, it was a high profile case so it grandstands itself. I don't think she is pushing any agenda either. Too many people involved inthis case for her to get away with that

So, I guess I'll have to wait until trial before making judgment.

To deny, however, that race is not the main factor of the attention this case is getting is delusional. Kind of like the ol' southerners claiming the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but about states' rights. That's not lazy thinking, it's reality.

[Gator by God's Grace]

if Bklyn is syaing that the media is "sensationalist" and not necessarily "liberal," then i agree with that.

but the race angle is absolutely what has made this case "sensational" for the media, even to the point of coining "white-hispanic" to describe Zimmerman once it was revealed that the dude is south american, so that they could cling to the white-black narrative...

[eCat]

"we don't see a W or a B or even an H, we see a V for victim"

she sees this as her moment to make a name for herself and get that talk show gig as a talking head later on. I thought it was pathetic

If Zimmerman goes to trial and is found innocent, she is going to have to take responsibility for the fall out of what happens in that community.

[aTm]

"white-hispanic" is not really a new term

[Bklyn]

Yep...as white hispanics have been quick to point out forever.

I don't think she was grandstanding

It was a press conference held at 6pm. She wanted to take advantage of the evening media cycle. Grandstanding.

If she wanted to be mindful of the impacts, she would have made the presser on Thursday at 9:15am.

To deny, however, that race is not the main factor of the attention this case is getting is delusional

Again, let me be clear, my issue is with people saying that the only reason this case is getting attention is due to it being a black kid shot by a white man and if it was a white man shot by a black man it would not have gotten the attention is lazy. I still stand behind that...in the most lucid way possible.

[eCat]

another thing, would we be having any issues with Zimmerman following Martin, Martin confronting Zimmerman , beats the shit out of Zimmerman and then Martin is arrested for assault, just because the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Martin?

if we can agree that Zimmerman had no intention to shoot Martin (hence the second degree), and there was a struggle (which I'm not sure of but it appears the consensus is that it did happen) then it boils down to did Zimmerman have a right to shoot Martin to avoid receiving an ass kicking.

Now , after reading a definition of the law by a Florida Law professor, I found this

"Under Florida's stand your ground law, a person is immune from criminal prosecution when using justifiable force to protect oneself from another persons use of imminent unlawful force against them. The key here is that the force used to defend yourself must be "justifiable". This means that the force must be reasonable in relation to the threatened force. For instance, if someone attacks you with non-deadly force, such as their fists, you may not defend yourself with deadly force. On the other hand, if someone threatens you with deadly force or great bodily harm, such as a gun or a knife, you can use deadly force in response if you believe it is "reasonably" necessary. However, this law does not allow someone to act in self-defense to a law enforcement officer. "

So to me it would appear that Zimmerman is indeed on shaky ground based on that definition as Martin was not only unarmed but smaller in stature. However I'm not sure one could reasonably argue that Zimmerman understood the intent that Martin was just going to administer an ass whoopin as opposed to potentially causing permanent if not fatal harm to him in an attack. The law seems poorly supported at best if it eliminates the requirement you attempt to retreat from imminent danger but cannot use superior force to protect yourself should you stay.

[Bklyn]

Shaky ground = Go to trial. That's all I've been saying...

[eCat]

I guess I can see it

right now I think its railroading to appease public sentiment but the trial will spotlight the law which is the real issue here.

[sardis]

if Bklyn is syaing that the media is "sensationalist" and not necessarily "liberal," then i agree with that.

but the race angle is absolutely what has made this case "sensational" for the media, even to the point of coining "white-hispanic" to describe Zimmerman once it was revealed that the dude is south american, so that they could cling to the white-black narrative...

And let's not forget, "If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon"

[10ac]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... rpton.html

Holder praises Sharpton.

[Owlman]

IF the voice on the 911 calling for help is actually George Zimmerman and they have a witness that came forward saying that Martin was indeed attacking Zimmerman, then regardless of whether Zimmerman was in the wrong for getting out of the car to follow Martin or not, if Martin made the decision to attack Zimmerman, then that is self defense without the stand your ground law, and with the stand your ground law, it, as I suspect with the original police report, they understood there was no chance of convicting Zimmerman.

You don't get to instigate a confrontation and then use Stand Your Ground. You don't get to stalk, confront, hinder someone's progress and then say, I'm Standing Your Ground. You don't get to use Stand Your Ground because of a fight you started. That's where the facts will decide the guilt or innocence in this case. Did he follow and confront Martin causing Martin to reasonably believe that he was at risk of harmful contact (otherwise known as assault)? If so, Stand Your Ground doesn't not apply. If, as the brother of Zimmerman said last night, Zimmerman lost track of Martin and Martin came up behind him and hit him in the back of the head 3 minutes after Zimmerman hung up, then it was not an assault and it was Zimmerman defending himself because he reasonably felt he was at risk of serious bodily harm, also by the way, not Stand Your Ground.

The Dooley case has absolutely nothing to do with this up to this point and may even prove the parents point. Why? Dooley was arrested. The shooting was on Sept 26, 2010 and he was charged on Sept 27, 2010. Thank God for Twitter campaign, and whoever else, including Sharpton in this case (who I generally dislike because I was in NY during the Tawana Brawley case). Because, nobody would have looked at this any further without them.

[Owlman]

As for Second Degree, that's a surprise. It means the Prosecutor believes she can show either that Zimmerman either was committing a felony (such as battery) or that she can show that there was ill-intent on the part of the Zimmerman. Prosecutors have a tendency to overcharge and the public generally believe them because they want to believe the police/prosecutor. That doesn't work though with celebrity/show trials though and can be a problem (OJ Simpson for example, never should have been 1st degree premeditated murder but should have been second degree-never would have wasted time on him planning to kill her).

I expect that the charges will change to manslaughter if Zimmerman doesn't plea bargain.

[Jungle Rat]

OJ didn't kill them but his son did.