ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Also, apparently the States Attorney has had the case passed off to them. Hopefully they'll be more responsible with it then the local PD was.
This is a picture of the kid that was killed, by the way. Some very apologist news agencies (Think the equivalent of Fox News in other formats, locally.) are apparently trying to play Trayvon, the murdered kid, off as being some sort of Incredible Hulk stand-in as justification for the shooting.
Hardly a threatening looking fellow, i'd say.
Archonex on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
What are you talking about, unthreatening? Look at how black he is.
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
Here's some more stuff from the Huffington Post. Kind of puts this in context.
Huffington Post posted:
Lee’s predecessor, Brian Tooley, was forced from office last year following a scandal involving a lieutenant’s son who was captured on video attacking a homeless black man. Police officers reportedly questioned him but did not arrest him. The officer’s son, Justin Collison, 21, later turned himself in after the video surfaced on YouTube and was charged in the attack.
Collison's family paid an undisclosed sum to the homeless man, Sherman Ware, and Ware asked prosecutors to drop the case. They didn't, and Collison eventually pleaded no contest and received probation, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
But the 2005 killing of a black teenager, Travares McGill, by two white security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police officer, drove city race relations to a modern low, according to some black residents.
Early one summer morning, security guards Patrick Swofford and Bryan Ansley saw McGill dropping off a group of friends in the parking lot of the apartment complex they were hired to guard, according to published reports. They claimed McGill tried to run them down, and both fired, later claiming self-defense. McGill was pronounced dead at the scene. Swofford was a police department volunteer and Ansley is the son of a former veteran of the force.
The pair was arrested and charged, Swofford with manslaughter and Ansley with firing into an occupied vehicle. But a judge later cited lack of evidence and dismissed both cases. According to autopsy reports, McGill suffered fatal gunshot wounds to the back, and it was unclear if the pair was in danger.
Kind of sounds like the police covering this sort of thing up isn't that new, there.
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Also, apparently the States Attorney has had the case passed off to them. Hopefully they'll be more responsible with it then the local PD was.
This is a picture of the kid that was killed, by the way. Some very apologist news agencies (Think the equivalent of Fox News in other formats, locally.) are apparently trying to play Trayvon, the murdered kid, off as being some sort of Incredible Hulk stand-in as justification for the shooting.
Hardly a threatening looking fellow, i'd say.
The kid lived in the same gated community as his killer.
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
Pardon me. It wasn't 45ish time. It was 46 times that Zimmerman called the cops. Also, his educational history reads like a resume for a rent-a-cop that takes his job way too seriously.
I bolded (And italicsed part of the bolded part.) the best part of the article. Talk about a slap in the face to the parents of the dead kid.
Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to 911
By Frances Robles
frobles@MiamiHerald.com
PETER ANDREW BOSCH / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
Sybrina Fulton is the mother of Trayvon Martin, the Miami teenager who was killed by a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida.
The people at the Retreat of Twin Lakes had been missing bikes, grills and a few times thought strangers were casing their town houses.
When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who admitted to shooting an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager and who is now the focal point of a race-related scandal of national proportions.
Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.
But the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin left the boy’s family and attorneys convinced that the volunteer developed a twisted sense of entitlement, one that gave him a false sense of authority to enforce the rule of law in his tiny gated community. Trayvon’s family’s attorneys believe that led to racial profiling and murder.
“He would circle the block and circle it; it was weird,” said Teontae Amie, 17. “If he had spotted me, he’d probably ask me if I lived here. He was known for being really strict.”
Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.
“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy at Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good,” Zimmerman told a dispatcher on Feb. 26, the night of Trayvon’s death.
According to 911 recordings released late Friday by Sanford police, Zimmerman said the person was walking slowly, looked drugged and appeared to be looking at people’s houses. Police would later learn that Trayvon had gone to 7-Eleven during the NBA All Star game halftime to get Skittles and Arizona iced tea.
“These a--holes always get away,” Zimmerman complained.
What happened next is unclear, and has already reverberated nationwide. Calls to 911 alerted police to a scuffle and someone crying for help. In one, the chilling howl stopped after the clear, crisp blast of a bullet. Trayvon was lying face down on the ground near a pathway that runs through the townhouse community.
One 911 caller sobbed to the dispatcher over not having helped the young man who wailed.
Zimmerman told police that was him crying for help and that Trayvon started the fight. He claimed self-defense and was not charged, flaring deep-seated racial tensions between blacks and police, who have a long history of distrust. On at least two prior occasions, the Sanford Police Department was accused of giving favorable treatment to relatives of officers involved in violent encounters with blacks.
In 2010, police waited seven weeks to arrest a lieutenant’s son who was caught on video sucker-punching a homeless black man.
In 2005, two security guards — one the son of a longtime Sanford police officer and the other a department volunteer — killed a black man they said was trying to run them over. Black leaders complained of a lackluster investigation. The guards ultimately were acquitted.
“Zimmerman felt he was one of them; he felt he was a cop,” said Trayvon’s family attorney, Natalie Jackson, who accuses the police of protecting him.
The recent shooting raised troubling questions about whether the homeowners association knew its volunteer was armed with a Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Many residents — black and white — question Zimmerman’s judgment and wonder why he would have engaged the teenager at all.
The answer may lie in police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death.
In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.
“He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.”
Zimmerman told neighbors about stolen laptops and unsavory characters. Ibrahim Rashada, a 25-year-old African American who works at U.S. Airways, once spotted young men cutting through the woods entering the complex on foot, and later learned items were stolen those days.
“It’s a gated community, but you can walk in and steal whatever you want,” Rashada’s wife, Quianna, said.
They discussed the topic with Zimmerman when the watch captain knocked on their door late last year. Zimmerman seemed friendly, helpful, and a “pretty cool dude,” Ibrahim Rashada said.
“He came by here and talked about carrying guns and getting my wife more involved with guns,” he said. “He said I should have a weapon and that his wife took classes to learn how to use one.
“I do have a weapon, but I don’t walk around the neighborhood with mine!”
Actually, he does not walk around the neighborhood at all.
“I fit the stereotype he emailed around,” he said. “Listen, you even hear me say it: ‘A black guy did this. A black guy did that.’ So I thought, ‘Let me sit in the house. I don’t want anyone chasing me.’ ”
For walks, he goes downtown. A pregnant Quianna listened to her husband’s rationale, dropped her head, and cried.
“That’s so sad,” she said. “I hope our child doesn’t have to go through that.”
Travis Williams, a black 16-year-old who wears dreadlocks, said last year a man came to his house and accused him of stealing a bicycle. The police even came and checked the serial numbers on the bike in his garage.
Problems in the 6-year-old community started during the recession, when foreclosures forced owners to rent out to “low-lifes and gangsters,” said Frank Taaffe, a former neighborhood block captain.
“Just two weeks before this shooting, George called me at my girlfriend’s house to say he saw some black guy doing surveillance at my house, because I had a left a window open,” Taaffe said. “He thwarted a potential burglary of my house.”
Taaffe sounded chagrined when he noted that the complex is now majority-minority. Census figures show Retreat at Twin Lakes is 49 percent white, non-Hispanic, 23 percent Hispanic, 20 percent African-American and 5 percent Asian.
He suspects Zimmerman got tired of thugs “and reached his breaking point,” Taaffe said. “But why was he carrying a gun? Why not carry pepper spray or a Taser? That’s bizarre-o.”
Taaffe said Zimmerman was so normal that he came across as though he were “an engineer from Lockheed Martin.” He did not show up to homeowner association meetings Rambo-style “wearing a bandana around his head with a bowie knife sticking out of his pocket,” Taaffe said.
It’s unclear what Zimmerman, who is married, does for a living, although he once owned a pressure washing company.
As for any past legal blemishes, he was once arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer when he interfered in a friend’s arrest. The charge was reduced to simple battery, and he entered a plea that allowed him to have a clean record and qualify for a concealed weapons permit.
In a statement delivered to the Orlando Sentinel, his father, Robert Zimmerman, defended his son, who he said was a “Spanish-speaking minority with many black family members and friends.”
“He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever,” Robert Zimmerman wrote. “One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor.”
He said the family prays for Trayvon and his parents every day.
At no time, the father wrote, did George Zimmerman follow or confront Trayvon, although the recording of the call to police shows the dispatcher asking him, “Are you following him?” and Zimmerman answered, “yeah.”
“We don’t need you to do that,” the police dispatcher said.
Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.
“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”
Police Chief Bill Lee said that although police do not encourage watch program volunteers to carry weapons, he recognizes a citizen’s constitutional right to do so. No arrest was made, Lee said, because there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s account.
He has cooperated with the investigation and never retained an attorney, Lee said. His phone numbers are disconnected and no one answered the door at his home or his parents’ home. His in-laws shooed a reporter away. After death threats and an avalanche of hate mail, Lee said Zimmerman went into hiding. Local station WFTV Channel 9 reported that he showed up with a truck last week and moved out.
“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
He also instantly hopped to the assumption that it was black men that were stealing all the bikes in the neighborhood.
Reality? Why do you have to be so much better at satire than satire sometimes?
“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
Why the fuck hasn't this ass been given his walking papers?
“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
Why the fuck hasn't this ass been given his walking papers?
If you read my quote in the post before him, his predecessor already was. He got caught doing the same shit Lee is doing right now, covering up abuses of power against blacks. In that case, they were gunned down as they were trying to run away from two rent-a-cops who were on a shooting spree. So basically the same thing as this. There was also the niggling little issue of the situation where the son of the lieutenant in question was caught beating the crap out of a black homeless man as well.
I'm assuming this current guy is an improvement over him, though by how much is obviously something that's going to be hard to tell...
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Huh? If he's a wackjob, it doesn't really sound like premeditated murder. It sounds like mental illness. Premeditation makes it sound like Zimmerman was just looking to kill him a darkie, so he set about making the calls, and creating the situation, in which he'd get a chance to do so without going to prison. Also, I heard he can't orgasm unless he strangles a kitten.
It's looking more and more, at least to me, as if this is a guy who has mental issues. They may have been brought on by his past experiences as a victim of crimes, or they may merely have been aggravated by them. But the idea that he's some kind of criminal mastermind who lives to kill innocent 17-year-old black kids and who plans all his other actions towards achieving that end....really? I mean, is that really what we're going with?
“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
Why the fuck hasn't this ass been given his walking papers?
If you read my quote in the post before him, his predecessor already was. He got caught doing the same shit Lee is doing right now, covering up abuses of power against blacks. In that case, they were gunned down as they were trying to run away from two rent-a-cops who were on a shooting spree. So basically the same thing as this. There was also the niggling little issue of the situation where the son of the lieutenant in question was caught beating the crap out of a black homeless man as well.
I'm assuming this current guy is an improvement over him, though by how much is obviously something that's going to be hard to tell...
It doesn't matter - especially after that little bit of victim blaming, Lee is clearly unfit to serve, and needs to get shitcanned ASAP.
But the real problem is the pants on head "stand your ground" law, which solved no problem, was just an exercise by the NRA in dick-swinging, and is endangering people.
“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
Why the fuck hasn't this ass been given his walking papers?
If you read my quote in the post before him, his predecessor already was. He got caught doing the same shit Lee is doing right now, covering up abuses of power against blacks. In that case, they were gunned down as they were trying to run away from two rent-a-cops who were on a shooting spree. So basically the same thing as this. There was also the niggling little issue of the situation where the son of the lieutenant in question was caught beating the crap out of a black homeless man as well.
I'm assuming this current guy is an improvement over him, though by how much is obviously something that's going to be hard to tell...
It doesn't matter - especially after that little bit of victim blaming, Lee is clearly unfit to serve, and needs to get shitcanned ASAP.
But the real problem is the pants on head "stand your ground" law, which solved no problem, was just an exercise by the NRA in dick-swinging, and is endangering people.
I was being sarcastic about him being better. He's clearly carrying on the honored tradition of beating the living hell out of african americans, that his predecessor was so cherished for.
Also, stand your ground laws are quite idiotic. Any court worth its salt will recognize the difference between self defense in a state without them, and aggravated willful assault. Removing the "duty to flee" requirements is a bad idea, since you can always point out that said person did not give you a chance to back down.
And as this incident shows, you don't even need those laws in place or not in place for a corrupt police department to break the law and become the arbitrator of what's right and wrong, instead of a court room.
Archonex on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Huh? If he's a wackjob, it doesn't really sound like premeditated murder. It sounds like mental illness. Premeditation makes it sound like Zimmerman was just looking to kill him a darkie, so he set about making the calls, and creating the situation, in which he'd get a chance to do so without going to prison. Also, I heard he can't orgasm unless he strangles a kitten.
It's looking more and more, at least to me, as if this is a guy who has mental issues. They may have been brought on by his past experiences as a victim of crimes, or they may merely have been aggravated by them. But the idea that he's some kind of criminal mastermind who lives to kill innocent 17-year-old black kids and who plans all his other actions towards achieving that end....really? I mean, is that really what we're going with?
Premeditation doesn't mean he had to put his whole neighborhood watch scheme into place with the aim of killing this kid; I think if he got out of his car and followed with the intent of shooting the kid then that's enough premeditation right there.
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Huh? If he's a wackjob, it doesn't really sound like premeditated murder. It sounds like mental illness. Premeditation makes it sound like Zimmerman was just looking to kill him a darkie, so he set about making the calls, and creating the situation, in which he'd get a chance to do so without going to prison. Also, I heard he can't orgasm unless he strangles a kitten.
It's looking more and more, at least to me, as if this is a guy who has mental issues. They may have been brought on by his past experiences as a victim of crimes, or they may merely have been aggravated by them. But the idea that he's some kind of criminal mastermind who lives to kill innocent 17-year-old black kids and who plans all his other actions towards achieving that end....really? I mean, is that really what we're going with?
No, I think "racist fuck who let a little power and success go to his head" is the general consensus here, which is not mental illness and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
So apparently Zimmerman claimed he had fired in self defense before actually shooting the guy. He also called, according to recently released records, the police something like 45ish times over attempted claims of "break ins" and other similar crimes he claims that others were perpetrating. It's looking more and more, especially with his comment of "They always get away.", like this was premeditated murder by a wackjob who was trying to carefully get out of the crime itself.
Huh? If he's a wackjob, it doesn't really sound like premeditated murder. It sounds like mental illness. Premeditation makes it sound like Zimmerman was just looking to kill him a darkie, so he set about making the calls, and creating the situation, in which he'd get a chance to do so without going to prison. Also, I heard he can't orgasm unless he strangles a kitten.
It's looking more and more, at least to me, as if this is a guy who has mental issues. They may have been brought on by his past experiences as a victim of crimes, or they may merely have been aggravated by them. But the idea that he's some kind of criminal mastermind who lives to kill innocent 17-year-old black kids and who plans all his other actions towards achieving that end....really? I mean, is that really what we're going with?
When you say mental issues it sounds like you're excusing his actions or indicating he was not criminally responsible. There's no evidence of mental illness, unless you take any evidence of bigotry and violent tendencies as mental illness.
He's a guy who assumed black people were criminals and decided that he was going to show those darkies they couldn't get away with crime, so he shot a 17 year old kid to death whose only crime was being black in the wrong neighborhood. That's not evidence of being mentally ill, that's evidence of being a terrible person.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
Am I an asshole because my immediate concern is "This guys going to get off the hook, and my neighborhood is going to get burned to the ground"?
I mean I hope this shitbird gets 110 years in jail for being a.) A Dirty Harry wannabe and b.) for being so stupid with a firearm, but my immediate concern is personal. Nothing would ruin my day like a riot being sparked off by some stupid hick with an itch trigger finger.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I thought this was all in a state that had adopted a "true man" or "stand your ground law" in which case retreat is not required (that is the whole point of those laws). That aside, I agree that you have the full opportunity to show how much harm the weapon could have inflicted in court. I think the unspoken concern here might be that in a racially charged case like this, there is a very real risk that the jury will not be impartial, and that something like the racial make up of the jurors could be determinative of the determination on the self defense claim.
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I thought this was all in a state that had adopted a "true man" or "stand your ground law" in which case retreat is not required (that is the whole point of those laws). That aside, I agree that you have the full opportunity to show how much harm the weapon could have inflicted in court. I think the unspoken concern here might be that in a racially charged case like this, there is a very real risk that the jury will not be impartial, and that something like the racial make up of the jurors could be determinative of the determination on the self defense claim.
You have the right to stand your ground, not pursue an unarmed kid through the streets and then gun him down in cold blood. These laws are meant to give one the right to self defense, a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, I would argue that this is perhaps a law that in practice is more a danger than an aid to society. I say this as a resident of Florida, a Republican, and a gun owner.
Here's the case:
It's a kid who went down the shop to pick up some tea and skittles, he was going to his friend or relatives' house in a posh neighborhood. The accused called up 911 who told him to not follow him, there is clear tape record of the accused saying "these people always get away". Multiple witnesses saying they heard the kid crying for help before a second gunshot silenced and the accused has a history of violence.
It's a fairly open and shut regardless of the color of your skin.
As much as I want to believe that this guy will get the pound-me-in-the-ass-prison sentence he deserves, we live in the same world where Oscar Grant got executed in a subway station and his killer, Johannes Mehserle, is already walking the street again. Shit like this makes me ashamed of my entire species.
THESPOOKY on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I thought this was all in a state that had adopted a "true man" or "stand your ground law" in which case retreat is not required (that is the whole point of those laws). That aside, I agree that you have the full opportunity to show how much harm the weapon could have inflicted in court. I think the unspoken concern here might be that in a racially charged case like this, there is a very real risk that the jury will not be impartial, and that something like the racial make up of the jurors could be determinative of the determination on the self defense claim.
You have the right to stand your ground, not pursue an unarmed kid through the streets and then gun him down in cold blood. These laws are meant to give one the right to self defense, a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, I would argue that this is perhaps a law that in practice is more a danger than an aid to society. I say this as a resident of Florida, a Republican, and a gun owner.
Here's the case:
It's a kid who went down the shop to pick up some tea and skittles, he was going to his friend or relatives' house in a posh neighborhood. The accused called up 911 who told him to not follow him, there is clear tape record of the accused saying "these people always get away". Multiple witnesses saying they heard the kid crying for help before a second gunshot silenced and the accused has a history of violence.
It's a fairly open and shut regardless of the color of your skin.
I agree completely. I was only responding to the statement that there is a duty to retreat. This particular case seems to be well outside the bounds of even the broadest true man laws.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead.
Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out.
The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife.
The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.
Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.
The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.
"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I thought this was all in a state that had adopted a "true man" or "stand your ground law" in which case retreat is not required (that is the whole point of those laws). That aside, I agree that you have the full opportunity to show how much harm the weapon could have inflicted in court. I think the unspoken concern here might be that in a racially charged case like this, there is a very real risk that the jury will not be impartial, and that something like the racial make up of the jurors could be determinative of the determination on the self defense claim.
You have the right to stand your ground, not pursue an unarmed kid through the streets and then gun him down in cold blood. These laws are meant to give one the right to self defense, a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, I would argue that this is perhaps a law that in practice is more a danger than an aid to society. I say this as a resident of Florida, a Republican, and a gun owner.
Here's the case:
It's a kid who went down the shop to pick up some tea and skittles, he was going to his friend or relatives' house in a posh neighborhood. The accused called up 911 who told him to not follow him, there is clear tape record of the accused saying "these people always get away". Multiple witnesses saying they heard the kid crying for help before a second gunshot silenced and the accused has a history of violence.
It's a fairly open and shut regardless of the color of your skin.
I agree completely. I was only responding to the statement that there is a duty to retreat. This particular case seems to be well outside the bounds of even the broadest true man laws.
Indeed. It's important in cases like this to get our phraseology right. Both Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat are important concepts. And neither are applicable to this racist moron.
Incidentally, it's nice when all sides on the forum agree on something.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that the line between presence, to imminent danger, all the way to actual great bodily harm can often be measured in milliseconds.
Yes, this is an argument I get to make to the jury. I'm just not convinced that, given the benefit of hindsight, they'll really understand it. Because, based on your posts, you're not exactly buying the concept.
As much as I want to believe that this guy will get the pound-me-in-the-ass-prison sentence he deserves, we live in the same world where Oscar Grant got executed in a subway station and his killer, Johannes Mehserle, is already walking the street again. Shit like this makes me ashamed of my entire species.
I know. We totally should have skipped that whole "showing intent" and "burden of proof" thing and just crucified the guy on the spot because we totally know what really happened.
Hey, AngelHedgie? Another one, right here.
EDIT: Note that I'm not implying that Mehserle acted in self-defense, not at all. I'm arguing that what was shown to the jury was that he acted illegally, and that that illegal act caused the death of another (through recklessness or negligence), but not that he acted out of malice. Which carries the sentence he received. Yet we get plenty of people that insist he should have gone away forever because of what they totally know he did.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that the line between presence, to imminent danger, all the way to actual great bodily harm can often be measured in milliseconds.
Yes, this is an argument I get to make to the jury. I'm just not convinced that, given the benefit of hindsight, they'll really understand it. Because, based on your posts, you're not exactly buying the concept.
As much as I want to believe that this guy will get the pound-me-in-the-ass-prison sentence he deserves, we live in the same world where Oscar Grant got executed in a subway station and his killer, Johannes Mehserle, is already walking the street again. Shit like this makes me ashamed of my entire species.
I know. We totally should have skipped that whole "showing intent" and "burden of proof" thing and just crucified the guy on the spot because we totally know what really happened.
Hey, AngelHedgie? Another one, right here.
EDIT: Note that I'm not implying that Mehserle acted in self-defense, not at all. I'm arguing that what was shown to the jury was that he acted illegally, and that that illegal act caused the death of another (through recklessness or negligence), but not that he acted out of malice. Which carries the sentence he received. Yet we get plenty of people that insist he should have gone away forever because of what they totally know he did.
Yes, because there a) the principle of "reckless malice" does, in fact, exist, and b) we should be holding sworn officers to a higher fucking standard. He should have gone away because being a sworn LEO, he should never have gotten into that position, and being a sworn LEO, the law should have come down harder on him.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
There could be other threatening actions taken that elevate it from the mere presence of the weapon to imminent harm. Arguably, drawing the gun "on" you, implying that it is pointed at you, satisfies this right off the bat.
I still maintain that most people who have not actually been in a position where somebody is trying to kill them, or had to draw a loaded weapon on somebody and decide whether or not to shoot, have absolutely zero concept of how quickly the spectrum of potential harm to imminent harm to actual harm can be traversed.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
There could be other threatening actions taken that elevate it from the mere presence of the weapon to imminent harm. Arguably, drawing the gun "on" you, implying that it is pointed at you, satisfies this right off the bat.
I still maintain that most people who have not actually been in a position where somebody is trying to kill them, or had to draw a loaded weapon on somebody and decide whether or not to shoot, have absolutely zero concept of how quickly the spectrum of potential harm to imminent harm to actual harm can be traversed.
I would take it past that and say that most people who haven't been in a position where someone is trying to intentionally injure them, don't realize how fast things can progress from "nothing going on" to "WTF IS HAPPENING?!"
It can be as fast as entering a dark room and flicking the light switch to the lights being on.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
But if we're talking about non-guns, we're probably talking about a weapon (knife, blunt object) in somebody's hand already. Not just "on them." So then the question is whether it can be safely escaped. And yes, this is something I don't necessarily trust a jury to determine after the fact, regardless of how good my lawyer may be.
Especially since, with the attacker dead, we can't hold a convenient foot race to settle the issue.
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
Wait, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that someone simply having a pistol on their person could be reason enough to use lethal force against that person? Is that right?
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
Wait, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that someone simply having a pistol on their person could be reason enough to use lethal force against that person? Is that right?
Like I said, depends on the situation.
Placement of the persons hands.
Location of the firearm.
The persons demeanor.
The location.
Number of other individuals in the immediate area, are they the person's friends/my friends/randoms.
What can I gauge about the persons intent.
Is the person wearing anything that would signify affiliation with law enforcement.
Etc. etc.
And no, I wouldn't just shoot, but if I felt the need I would make ready.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
Wait, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that someone simply having a pistol on their person could be reason enough to use lethal force against that person? Is that right?
Somebody having a pistol on their person while vocalizing specific threats certainly could be.
Particularly if their hands are anywhere near it.
Point being that an undrawn gun can still be an imminent threat.
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
Which, if you've been reading my posts, is exactly my position - it may or may not be, and that's why the defense has every opportunity to present the matter to the jury to explain why it would be. But at the same time, the jury then should have the right to determine that no, the case wasn't made for self defense.
What bothers me is that the argument is being made that juries can't be trusted to understand the nuances of the situation, and thus the determination of self defense should be taken out of their hands. That should offend anyone who believes in the principles of our judicial system.
Which, if you've been reading my posts, is exactly my position - it may or may not be, and that's why the defense has every opportunity to present the matter to the jury to explain why it would be. But at the same time, the jury then should have the right to determine that no, the case wasn't made for self defense.
What bothers me is that the argument is being made that juries can't be trusted to understand the nuances of the situation, and thus the determination of self defense should be taken out of their hands. That should offend anyone who believes in the principles of our judicial system.
The main thing the Stand Your Ground law in Florida was meant to do was not to keep people from being charged with crime for shooting someone. It's primary intent was to keep "victims" or their families from suing people who used justified self defense for damages/wrongful death.
It hasn't really changed how shooting investigations are handled in Florida, Cops can and do still charge people who feel they were acting in self defense, and juries still do get to decide.
As far as this specific case goes, the guy should probably be under arrest, and he probably will end up being charged, but I don't think they will try to pin Murder on him. More than likely they will charge him with Voluntary Manslaughter.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
As far as this specific case goes, the guy should probably be under arrest, and he probably will end up being charged, but I don't think they will try to pin Murder on him. More than likely they will charge him with Voluntary Manslaughter.
That would be what I like to call 'fucking insane'. It's first degree murder. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, may or may not have started some physical confrontation with Trayvor (burden of proof is on Zimmerman, and he hasn't met it), then shot him dead as he begged for his life.
If that is not pre-meditated murder, then there is no such thing as pre-meditated murder.
As far as this specific case goes, the guy should probably be under arrest, and he probably will end up being charged, but I don't think they will try to pin Murder on him. More than likely they will charge him with Voluntary Manslaughter.
That would be what I like to call 'fucking insane'. It's first degree murder. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, may or may not have started some physical confrontation with Trayvor (burden of proof is on Zimmerman, and he hasn't met it), then shot him dead as he begged for his life.
If that is not pre-meditated murder, then there is no such thing as pre-meditated murder.
*shrug*
That's how I see it working out.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
They will probably try for murder and settle for manslaughter.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
As far as this specific case goes, the guy should probably be under arrest, and he probably will end up being charged, but I don't think they will try to pin Murder on him. More than likely they will charge him with Voluntary Manslaughter.
That would be what I like to call 'fucking insane'. It's first degree murder. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, may or may not have started some physical confrontation with Trayvor (burden of proof is on Zimmerman, and he hasn't met it), then shot him dead as he begged for his life.
If that is not pre-meditated murder, then there is no such thing as pre-meditated murder.
*shrug*
That's how I see it working out.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
They will probably try for murder and settle for manslaughter.
Not just some 911 calls. A 911 call with Zimmerman saying, "These assholes always get away," and telling the dispatcher that he was going to follow the asshole and the dispatcher telling him not to.
"These assholes always get away", but not Trayvon, because Zimmerman was there to stop him from eating his Skittles and watching the rest of that game.
Posts
Also, apparently the States Attorney has had the case passed off to them. Hopefully they'll be more responsible with it then the local PD was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/trayvon-martin-sanford-state-attorney_n_1343223.html
This is a picture of the kid that was killed, by the way. Some very apologist news agencies (Think the equivalent of Fox News in other formats, locally.) are apparently trying to play Trayvon, the murdered kid, off as being some sort of Incredible Hulk stand-in as justification for the shooting.
Hardly a threatening looking fellow, i'd say.
Kind of sounds like the police covering this sort of thing up isn't that new, there.
The kid lived in the same gated community as his killer.
I bolded (And italicsed part of the bolded part.) the best part of the article. Talk about a slap in the face to the parents of the dead kid.
He also instantly hopped to the assumption that it was black men that were stealing all the bikes in the neighborhood.
Reality? Why do you have to be so much better at satire than satire sometimes?
Why the fuck hasn't this ass been given his walking papers?
If you read my quote in the post before him, his predecessor already was. He got caught doing the same shit Lee is doing right now, covering up abuses of power against blacks. In that case, they were gunned down as they were trying to run away from two rent-a-cops who were on a shooting spree. So basically the same thing as this. There was also the niggling little issue of the situation where the son of the lieutenant in question was caught beating the crap out of a black homeless man as well.
I'm assuming this current guy is an improvement over him, though by how much is obviously something that's going to be hard to tell...
Huh? If he's a wackjob, it doesn't really sound like premeditated murder. It sounds like mental illness. Premeditation makes it sound like Zimmerman was just looking to kill him a darkie, so he set about making the calls, and creating the situation, in which he'd get a chance to do so without going to prison. Also, I heard he can't orgasm unless he strangles a kitten.
It's looking more and more, at least to me, as if this is a guy who has mental issues. They may have been brought on by his past experiences as a victim of crimes, or they may merely have been aggravated by them. But the idea that he's some kind of criminal mastermind who lives to kill innocent 17-year-old black kids and who plans all his other actions towards achieving that end....really? I mean, is that really what we're going with?
It doesn't matter - especially after that little bit of victim blaming, Lee is clearly unfit to serve, and needs to get shitcanned ASAP.
But the real problem is the pants on head "stand your ground" law, which solved no problem, was just an exercise by the NRA in dick-swinging, and is endangering people.
I was being sarcastic about him being better. He's clearly carrying on the honored tradition of beating the living hell out of african americans, that his predecessor was so cherished for.
Also, stand your ground laws are quite idiotic. Any court worth its salt will recognize the difference between self defense in a state without them, and aggravated willful assault. Removing the "duty to flee" requirements is a bad idea, since you can always point out that said person did not give you a chance to back down.
And as this incident shows, you don't even need those laws in place or not in place for a corrupt police department to break the law and become the arbitrator of what's right and wrong, instead of a court room.
Premeditation doesn't mean he had to put his whole neighborhood watch scheme into place with the aim of killing this kid; I think if he got out of his car and followed with the intent of shooting the kid then that's enough premeditation right there.
No, I think "racist fuck who let a little power and success go to his head" is the general consensus here, which is not mental illness and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
I hear Florence, CO is lovely this time of year.
When you say mental issues it sounds like you're excusing his actions or indicating he was not criminally responsible. There's no evidence of mental illness, unless you take any evidence of bigotry and violent tendencies as mental illness.
He's a guy who assumed black people were criminals and decided that he was going to show those darkies they couldn't get away with crime, so he shot a 17 year old kid to death whose only crime was being black in the wrong neighborhood. That's not evidence of being mentally ill, that's evidence of being a terrible person.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?
EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.
And that behavior can easily be explained by him getting a little bit of power by becoming the self-appointed "neighborhood watch captain", amplified by several minor successes. No need to consider mental illness whatsoever.
And by the way, you've yet to demonstrate that juries can't be trusted to logically and legitimately judge the validity of an affirmative self defense claim.
I mean I hope this shitbird gets 110 years in jail for being a.) A Dirty Harry wannabe and b.) for being so stupid with a firearm, but my immediate concern is personal. Nothing would ruin my day like a riot being sparked off by some stupid hick with an itch trigger finger.
I dunno, every cop thread here ever (even though yeah, there are a lot of cases of unjustified force as well)? I don't know how I'd "demonstrate" this other than to somehow "prove" self-defense in a case where a jury convicted. I can say that the general attitude I see here and elsewhere regarding the level of physical danger that various parties have posed (and that various situations do pose) don't lead me to trust the average joe to realize what is and is not a potentially deadly situation (or at least one that can lead to grievous bodily harm). Why, here, from the very link you provided:
Ignoring for a minute why the hell Frazzini was (supposedly) wearing a camouflage mask, which certainly didn't help matters, what we have here is a case of somebody holding what appears to be a weapon capable of doing pretty significant harm. A short pipe, or any 14-inch blunt weapon, is more than enough to do significant damage. So, should the shooter here have waited until his son was hit in the head with whatever it was, assuming for a moment that Frazzini wasn't harmless? How many times should he have allowed the guy to hit him before using deadly force to stop him? One? Two? But what we have here is an elected representative deciding, after the fact, that the level of force was unwarranted. When, at the time, it may well have seemed absolutely necessary. Did I say elected representative? I meant potential juror. Elected by a whole lot of other potential jurors. And you, also presumably a potential juror, linked this article, and probably agreed with what's written above.
Suggesting the jurors may indeed try to decide, applying standards that make sense from the comfort of a courtroom without having to face any danger themselves (and quite possibly having never faced any such danger), whether force was warranted in a situation they did not themselves experience. Fists, pipes, and even souvenir baseball bats don't seem particularly dangerous when you're sitting in a jury box.
So basically you're saying that the other individual just being armed is enough to justify self-defense? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
You continue to tapdance around the actual argument, which is that self defense requires that you must be in a situation where you or another person must be in imminent danger of being greatly harmed, and that retreat is not safely feasible. You try to argue that we want to wait until the victim is injured, but you seek to give carte blanche to someone to use lethal force against someone just because they feel threatened by their presence, without any action taken against the person.
Furthermore, it would be nice if you would stop the "juries are stupid" argument. When claiming self defense, you (well, your lawyer) would be more than able to argue exactly how dangerous the weapon was, what it would be capable of doing to you. In short, if the jury has a poor idea of the danger posed by such a weapon, it's not a failure of the jury, it's a failure of the defense, and should be treated as such.
I thought this was all in a state that had adopted a "true man" or "stand your ground law" in which case retreat is not required (that is the whole point of those laws). That aside, I agree that you have the full opportunity to show how much harm the weapon could have inflicted in court. I think the unspoken concern here might be that in a racially charged case like this, there is a very real risk that the jury will not be impartial, and that something like the racial make up of the jurors could be determinative of the determination on the self defense claim.
You have the right to stand your ground, not pursue an unarmed kid through the streets and then gun him down in cold blood. These laws are meant to give one the right to self defense, a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, I would argue that this is perhaps a law that in practice is more a danger than an aid to society. I say this as a resident of Florida, a Republican, and a gun owner.
Here's the case:
It's a kid who went down the shop to pick up some tea and skittles, he was going to his friend or relatives' house in a posh neighborhood. The accused called up 911 who told him to not follow him, there is clear tape record of the accused saying "these people always get away". Multiple witnesses saying they heard the kid crying for help before a second gunshot silenced and the accused has a history of violence.
It's a fairly open and shut regardless of the color of your skin.
I agree completely. I was only responding to the statement that there is a duty to retreat. This particular case seems to be well outside the bounds of even the broadest true man laws.
Indeed. It's important in cases like this to get our phraseology right. Both Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat are important concepts. And neither are applicable to this racist moron.
Incidentally, it's nice when all sides on the forum agree on something.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that the line between presence, to imminent danger, all the way to actual great bodily harm can often be measured in milliseconds.
Yes, this is an argument I get to make to the jury. I'm just not convinced that, given the benefit of hindsight, they'll really understand it. Because, based on your posts, you're not exactly buying the concept.
I know. We totally should have skipped that whole "showing intent" and "burden of proof" thing and just crucified the guy on the spot because we totally know what really happened.
Hey, AngelHedgie? Another one, right here.
EDIT: Note that I'm not implying that Mehserle acted in self-defense, not at all. I'm arguing that what was shown to the jury was that he acted illegally, and that that illegal act caused the death of another (through recklessness or negligence), but not that he acted out of malice. Which carries the sentence he received. Yet we get plenty of people that insist he should have gone away forever because of what they totally know he did.
Yes, because there a) the principle of "reckless malice" does, in fact, exist, and b) we should be holding sworn officers to a higher fucking standard. He should have gone away because being a sworn LEO, he should never have gotten into that position, and being a sworn LEO, the law should have come down harder on him.
Here's the thing - if you can't convince a jury of the fact that there was an imminent threat to you that was not safely escapable, I don't think the problem is with the jury. Again, juries aren't idiots, and it would be nice if you'd stop acting as if they are. And you're right, I'm not buying the main argument, because I think that any claim of self defense needs to be evaluated on the merits of the claim. Which means that you should have the requirement to actually prove the claim of imminent harm, which for me is going to take more than "well, that weapon could do a lot of damage."
You seem to think that it's a good idea to not require people to defend their justification of self defense, because it will make people second guess themselves. I think that Florida has been demonstrating why that is folly.
So if someone pulls a gun on you, when you yourself are armed, the AngelHedgie response would be to wait until he fires thereby demonstrating the claim of imminent harm before you can shoot back in self defense?
There could be other threatening actions taken that elevate it from the mere presence of the weapon to imminent harm. Arguably, drawing the gun "on" you, implying that it is pointed at you, satisfies this right off the bat.
I still maintain that most people who have not actually been in a position where somebody is trying to kill them, or had to draw a loaded weapon on somebody and decide whether or not to shoot, have absolutely zero concept of how quickly the spectrum of potential harm to imminent harm to actual harm can be traversed.
I would take it past that and say that most people who haven't been in a position where someone is trying to intentionally injure them, don't realize how fast things can progress from "nothing going on" to "WTF IS HAPPENING?!"
It can be as fast as entering a dark room and flicking the light switch to the lights being on.
Very nice. That poor strawman never saw it coming.
I'm not a fucking idiot, I would see someone pulling a gun on another individual as an immediate threat that can't be safely escaped, because that's what having a gun pointed at you is. But if someone just has a gun on them, that sort of changes the scenario, don't you think?
But if we're talking about non-guns, we're probably talking about a weapon (knife, blunt object) in somebody's hand already. Not just "on them." So then the question is whether it can be safely escaped. And yes, this is something I don't necessarily trust a jury to determine after the fact, regardless of how good my lawyer may be.
Especially since, with the attacker dead, we can't hold a convenient foot race to settle the issue.
Depends on the situation because life isn't black and white.
Wait, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that someone simply having a pistol on their person could be reason enough to use lethal force against that person? Is that right?
Like I said, depends on the situation.
Placement of the persons hands.
Location of the firearm.
The persons demeanor.
The location.
Number of other individuals in the immediate area, are they the person's friends/my friends/randoms.
What can I gauge about the persons intent.
Is the person wearing anything that would signify affiliation with law enforcement.
Etc. etc.
And no, I wouldn't just shoot, but if I felt the need I would make ready.
Somebody having a pistol on their person while vocalizing specific threats certainly could be.
Particularly if their hands are anywhere near it.
Point being that an undrawn gun can still be an imminent threat.
Which, if you've been reading my posts, is exactly my position - it may or may not be, and that's why the defense has every opportunity to present the matter to the jury to explain why it would be. But at the same time, the jury then should have the right to determine that no, the case wasn't made for self defense.
What bothers me is that the argument is being made that juries can't be trusted to understand the nuances of the situation, and thus the determination of self defense should be taken out of their hands. That should offend anyone who believes in the principles of our judicial system.
The main thing the Stand Your Ground law in Florida was meant to do was not to keep people from being charged with crime for shooting someone. It's primary intent was to keep "victims" or their families from suing people who used justified self defense for damages/wrongful death.
It hasn't really changed how shooting investigations are handled in Florida, Cops can and do still charge people who feel they were acting in self defense, and juries still do get to decide.
As far as this specific case goes, the guy should probably be under arrest, and he probably will end up being charged, but I don't think they will try to pin Murder on him. More than likely they will charge him with Voluntary Manslaughter.
That would be what I like to call 'fucking insane'. It's first degree murder. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, may or may not have started some physical confrontation with Trayvor (burden of proof is on Zimmerman, and he hasn't met it), then shot him dead as he begged for his life.
If that is not pre-meditated murder, then there is no such thing as pre-meditated murder.
*shrug*
That's how I see it working out.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
They will probably try for murder and settle for manslaughter.
Not just some 911 calls. A 911 call with Zimmerman saying, "These assholes always get away," and telling the dispatcher that he was going to follow the asshole and the dispatcher telling him not to.
"These assholes always get away", but not Trayvon, because Zimmerman was there to stop him from eating his Skittles and watching the rest of that game.