Trayvon Martin case hurts all guns owners.

[justsomeguy]

@mamabearcali

you see, this is why it's tricky. by the time someone gets their gun out on you and points it at you it might be too late. hence, stand your ground. stand your ground doesn't say "you can stand your ground IF someone points or holds a gun at you". it says you can stand your ground against a real or perceived threat. that's the problem, and this case is only going to make people more paranoid, which is another reason that stand your ground is bad.

i find this case fascinating because it needs some kind of ballistics string theory to get to the bottom of it. for example, at what exact instance did martin go from standing his ground against a perceived threat to being the attacker against zimmerman? at what point was martin supposed to have let zimmerman up even though martin had to have noticed that zimmerman was armed? would anyone stop beating an armed person whom you perceive as a threat and who has been following you? i wouldn't. however, the question arises, at what point does stand your ground turn on and off? meaning, does stand your ground only apply to face to face situations or does stand your ground allow people to hide in order to get the jump on a perceived threat?

for example, if i were approached in a parking garage, and i felt threatened i could use deadly force under stand your ground. but if i were approached and subsequently followed could i hide and attack my perceived threat under stand your ground? interesting questions.

zimmerman might get off on a technicality, but i still believe that the law should protect the person(s) being followed who, through no action of their own, becomes a participant in an altercation/tense situation. the blame should always fall on those who create/incite/inflame situations. thing is, if zimmerman had been some random mugger, and the same sequence of events played out zimmerman would have just run away and martin would just be a random mugging/homicide gone wrong. it's only because zimmerman had good, though ill conceived, intentions that there is doubt regarding the outcome. again, stand your ground doesn't say that you have to wait until the mugger/stranger asks you to hand over your wallet before you can kill them. it just says you don't have to retreat.

the panther stuff is lunacy. this is a complete disaster thanks to the florida lawmakers.

[Kreutz]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/tra ... irt-759832

Pretty generous with the term cracker IMO. Does that mean us honkies are also "beaners?" If so, dibs on wise Latino moniker!

A certain segment is not exactly engendering itself to what is soon to be a massive constituency in America; Latinos.

Oh God, I've lived in some Latino areas and have had Latino room-mates...I can generally claim with some experience they are not fans of the brothers.

At all.

[mamabearCali]

HMMMM that is interesting. Only one round fired. That would seem, to me, to be indicative of a man shooting to stop a threat, not a homicidal racist maniac looking for a reason to kill a black person.

At any rate I am sure we all wish the time tables could be turned back and we could all shout at Zimmerman to stay put in the car and just WATCH! But, we can't. I am glad this is going to a grand jury, we have one of the best legal systems in the world (not perfect of course, but better than just about anywhere else), so I have hope that the truth will out.

[SilentServiceVet]

it would and wouldn't be self-defense.

It either is, or it is not. Can't be both. George Zimmerman probably should not have kept following Trayvon Martin, but Martin's actions of assaulting GZ (such as we know the facts of the case thus far), were likewise unwarranted. If I think someone is following me, I act -- but I've yet to go up and start a fight with tha person. When you initiate a confrontation, bad things happen.

this is why stand your ground is tricky, and imo the most moronic law ever crafted. i've read the comments talking about zimmerman following trayvon, and that right there would have given trayvon the right to exercise his stand your ground rights against zimmerman.

It's self-defense, not stand your ground, as I see it. Again, it appears as though Trayvon decided to engage in a physical assault. In self-defense, if you fear for your life, then deadly force is authorized. But doing so means running the risk of being found guilty of murder or manslaughter, e.g. I can't shoot someone on G.P. and then claim I felt threatened.

you do realize that two people engaged in an altercation both have stand your ground rights when there is no clear-cut premeditated act of violence.

Stand your ground has nothing to do with whether your assailant acted on "premeditation." Yes, a mugger puts thought into their actions before trying to rob you, and thus stand your ground is justifiable, but an incident arising in the heat of the moment can also result in stand your ground being a reasonable response.

under stand your ground that could have ended tragically for that homeless man, but had he been a mugger it could have ended tragically for me too. nonetheless, stand your ground was made for situations like that. someone was following me. i was afraid, and if i had had a gun i could have used it to STAND MY GROUND. however, the scary part is since it was just the two of us, how would anyone know who was the attacker and who was the defender? see the problem. dead men tell no tales.

If you shot the homeless man in this scenario before he even made a move, then you'd be guilty as sin. Simply being followed is not provocation enough to unholster and fire your weapon. If you had turned around and so a homeless man with a bat held up to club you in the head, then you have the right to defend yourself.

i said before, i'm not a gun owner, but many of you on here are, and are you telling me that if george zimmerman or any other stranger had approached one of you (legal gun carriers), tried to question you (not as an officer of the law), and began following you that you wouldn't have attempted to use some method to stop him once he found his way to you?

Trayvon and George could have waited for the police to arrive, or any number of scenarios that did not involve a fight and Trayvon's subsequent death. Did Trayvon know George wasn't perhaps an undercover police officer? Trayvon had a cell phone, so why didn't he call 911 instead of his girlfriend?

for one thing, had trayvon been armed he would have had the legal right to shoot zimmerman when zimmerman left his vehicle to approach the boy.

WRONG. You have to be able to demonstrate why you shot, otherwise you will be arrested. In this case, Zimmerman was beaten and bloodied and there was evidence to support his claim that he fired in self-defense.

however, once both men went their separate way the situation was over. the situation was reignited when zimmerman decided to follow trayvon.

This is news to me. Mr. Zimmerman said he followed Trayvon, lost him, then there was the confrontation. There was no previous face-to-face confrontation that they walked away from.

last man standing wins wherever this law is present.

It's not a case of stand your ground between Zimmerman and Martin. It's self-defense. But if it were stand your ground, you will be in trouble if you cannot justify your actions. This law is meant to provide protection for honest people; but you can bet the police will be able to tell if you did not reasonably act to defuse the situation or could not have taken any other course of action other than homicide.

[Kreutz]

I am glad this is going to a grand jury, we have one of the best legal systems in the world (not perfect of course, but better than just about anywhere else), so I have hope that the truth will out.

Grand juries are closed and almost always result in an indictment; the prosecutor has free reign to say anything since no one else is there to refute him.

This should have never gone this far, but, the meme that if you defend yourself from a black attacker you will be royally screwed must be promulgated, so, here we are.

This is not my paranoia talking, I see no other reason for this to teach whitey (and hispaney?) a lesson. Better to submit and die than resist, which is racist.

[SilentServiceVet]

To clarify why I see this matter, not as stand your ground, but rather self-defense, I'll defer to Massad Ayoob again:

"Pundits who don’t all seem to understand the concept are tying this shooting in to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law much more than they should. There is conflicting evidence/testimony as to whether Martin approached Zimmerman or vice versa in the penultimate moments before the physical fight that led to the fatal shot. There is, in short, not yet enough information for any of us outside the investigation to formulate a solid opinion."

If Zimmerman approached Martin, then it's not stand your ground per se. Did Zimmerman threaten Martin? We don't know. Who initiated the fight? We don't know. The eyewitness saw the scene after the fight started and if Trayvon were alive today, it would still be one person's word against another. Our laws state "innocent until proven guilty." There would need to be conclusive evidence that GZ started the altercation, IMO.

[mamabearCali]

@mamabearcali

you see, this is why it's tricky. by the time someone gets their gun out on you and points it at you it might be too late. hence, stand your ground. stand your ground doesn't say "you can stand your ground IF someone points or holds a gun at you". it says you can stand your ground against a real or perceived threat. that's the problem, and this case is only going to make people more paranoid, which is another reason that stand your ground is bad.

Well in this case, Martin had no duty to retreat from Zimmerman, but neither did he have the right to attack him. Like I said before being followed does not, by itself, constitute a lethal threat.

i find this case fascinating because it needs some kind of ballistics string theory to get to the bottom of it. for example, at what exact instance did martin go from standing his ground against a perceived threat to being the attacker against zimmerman? at what point was martin supposed to have let zimmerman up even though martin had to have noticed that zimmerman was armed? would anyone stop beating an armed person whom you perceive as a threat and who has been following you? i wouldn't. however, the question arises, at what point does stand your ground turn on and off? meaning, does stand your ground only apply to face to face situations or does stand your ground allow people to hide in order to get the jump on a perceived threat?

for example, if i were approached in a parking garage, and i felt threatened i could use deadly force under stand your ground. but if i were approached and subsequently followed could i hide and attack my perceived threat under stand your ground? interesting questions.

I think it is never ever a good idea to jump someone. That always ends bad. As for when something goes from a fight to lethal--well I don't get into fights on a regular basis and I don't reccomend that anyone does.

Now, If someone fans out in the parking garage and approaches you I think a good indicator of what they are up to is to say "stop! back up!" if they keep coming at you in an aggressive manner I would then draw, if that does not end the confrontation then I would fire. I would not ever recommend going from "is that guy following me? to BANG!" You never know, they might be a person trying to give you your keys you dropped three rows back.

zimmerman might get off on a technicality, but i still believe that the law should protect the person(s) being followed who, through no action of their own, becomes a participant in an altercation/tense situation. the blame should always fall on those who create/incite/inflame situations. thing is, if zimmerman had been some random mugger, and the same sequence of events played out zimmerman would have just run away and martin would just be a random mugging/homicide gone wrong. it's only because zimmerman had good, though ill conceived, intentions that there is doubt regarding the outcome. again, stand your ground doesn't say that you have to wait until the mugger/stranger asks you to hand over your wallet before you can kill them. it just says you don't have to retreat.

the panther stuff is lunacy. this is a complete disaster thanks to the florida lawmakers.

IMO Martin got himself involved when instead of either standing his ground (and continuing home or calling the police). He made the decision to attack a person with lethal force who had not posed a lethal threat to him. Now if it comes out that Zimmerman had tried to hold Martin or attacked Martin then that is something all together different. I state again following someone is not illegal, foolish, perhaps, but not illegal. Attacking someone, without a doubt, is.


Now lets say that you and your neighbors have had your cars vandalized repeatedly over the past few weeks. You got a look at they guy who did it once, but not much more than a look. A week later you are coming home from work and you see what you think looks like that same fellow walking along the road perhaps being suspcious, looking at cars, walking slowly past houses, you call the police. Then you see him look into a back yard and jump the fence. Holy cow, you realize, that is the Smiths yard where your daughters best friend lives. You get out of your car only to see the guy walking down the road again, you watch him walk down a few yards when he turns around and asks why are you following me? You ask him what he is doing? He calls you a name and then seems to move on. You head back to your car (as Zimmerman said he was doing) and suddenly there he is again this time he hits you knocks you on the ground and is beating you to death. You are saying that you would not see self defense there?

[SilentServiceVet]

+1 ^^

I think we're sharing the same collective thoughts, MamaBear. Your response read very similar to mine!

[mamabearCali]

I am glad this is going to a grand jury, we have one of the best legal systems in the world (not perfect of course, but better than just about anywhere else), so I have hope that the truth will out.

Grand juries are closed and almost always result in an indictment; the prosecutor has free reign to say anything since no one else is there to refute him.

This should have never gone this far, but, the meme that if you defend yourself from a black attacker you will be royally screwed must be promulgated, so, here we are.

This is not my paranoia talking, I see no other reason for this to teach whitey (and hispaney?) a lesson. Better to submit and die than resist, which is racist.

I didn't say our legal system is perfect. It is costly, can be corrupt, and unless you have $$ to hire a good lawyer justice is hard to find, but it is better than any other I have heard of. I have heard of grand jury's no billing people so I that gives me some hope for justice. You are right that this should not have gone this far, but it is harder for a bunch of lunatics to complain about the results of a grand jury than about a DA. As the grand jury is of the people they will be harder to call racist and have it stick.

[mamabearCali]

The police have put out their version of what they think happened.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager

seems to side with Zimmerman quite a bit.

[Tweaker]

jsg, please buy some CAPITAL LETTERS.

[justsomeguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8rws30u ... re=related

he didn't go back to his car, which is why he wanted the police to call him so he could tell them where he was. he didn't intend to go back to his car because if he had he would have said "meet me at my car". he is already searching for martin while he's talking to police.

he states that there have been a rash of break-ins in the area, and he reports a suspicious person. he then goes on to make generalization after generalization about martin: he's suspicous (why), he's on drugs (how could you know that), he has his hand on his waste band (this can be known).

why was martin staring at zimmerman? probably because zimmerman was staring at him. zimmerman reports that martin was coming toward him during the initial phone call. martin should not have done that, if that is true. but again, what does coming toward mean? is he directly walking toward zimmerman (i doubt it because if he had been we probably would have heard martin)? is he walking near zimmerman? or is he walking up the sidewalk/street toward zimmerman's location? each of those things is different.

in addition, everything zimmerman described about martin could have been martin's assessment of zimmerman: we've had a rash of break-ins, i see a suspicious person, etc.... zimmerman says he's "running" but how do we know this to mean literally running and not just walking or jogging away? although, even if martin did run away, and even if martin was the burglar, zimmerman should have stayed with his vehicle and waited for police. (but this has been agreed upon by most people in this forum thread).

what happens after that is unknown, and all we have are the words of the survivor. either way, zimmerman's admission to following is a huge problem.

and i can assure you ,right now, that if i had shot that homeless person (unknown at the time), i would not have been charged under stand your ground. that's why the law is stupid. anyone can shoot people, as long as there are no witnesses, and claim stand your ground. as long as you say you felt threatened and the person made a suspicious move toward you it's self-defense. and as for the person following you because you dropped your car keys. no one would do that on a street, at night, alone. no one. they would shout ahead to you "hey! you dropped your car keys". they wouldn't follow behind you until they were right behind you to say that, which is what the homeless man did to me. he followed me a few streets down until he was about 10 feet behind me, before i turned around and he stopped.

now, could i have shot him under stand your ground? yes i could have because i felt unease, and threatened by his presence and i had noticed him following me steet after street, and his speed was increasing. usually if two people are traveling in the same direction on an empty street at night, the person who's behind keeps some distance between themselves and the person walking ahead. at least, that's what i do if i know i'm walking (NOT FOLLOWING) behind someone, at night. no. he was following/stalking me. would it have been morally right to shoot him? no. he didn't pose a threat, and he didn't make any motion toward me, but i wouldn't have to have known that under stand your ground. the whole point of the law is so you don't have to wait for someone to directly threaten you before you can stand your ground and use force.

the vagueness comes into play when unscrupulous people use stand your ground to justify their desire to kill people. what's stopping someone from inciting a fight WITH WORDS--no action-- against an unarmed person, wait for that person to throw the first punch and then shoot them when you start to get the worst of the altercation? nothing.

if two people are building up to a fight, which one gets to stand their ground before, during, or after the fight?

[SilentServiceVet]

the vagueness comes into play when unscrupulous people use stand your ground to justify their desire to kill people. what's stopping someone from inciting a fight WITH WORDS--no action-- against an unarmed person, wait for that person to throw the first punch and then shoot them when you start to get the worst of the altercation? nothing.

if two people are building up to a fight, which one gets to stand their ground before, during, or after the fight?

The vagueness you speak of is because no law can account for every possible scenario. Not possible. Let's say you do shoot someone and claim you were standing your ground. Without any eyewitnesses or evidence to corroborate your story, you may or may not be charged. Rest assured the police will know what things to look for and what questions to ask you.

... they wouldn't follow behind you until they were right behind you to say that, which is what the homeless man did to me. he followed me a few streets down until he was about 10 feet behind me, before i turned around and he stopped.

now, could i have shot him under stand your ground? yes i could have because i felt unease, and threatened by his presence and i had noticed him following me steet after street, and his speed was increasing.

My problem with this scenario or events you claim took place is it's not likely. I worked in downtown DC. I have been approached by homeless people seeking "financial aid" on many occasions. Never once did one follow me for "several blocks" just to beg for money, if for no other reason than homeless people have their own turfs in DC. Perhaps you surprised him by turning around? Situational awareness is your friend.

But let me clarify something I think you're missing about this statute: there is a difference between feeling uneasy or threatened -- and fearing for your life. Furthermore, you have alternatives to shooting a person. If it's a choice of fight or flight and you choose fight, you have that right if it is reasonable.

usually if two people are traveling in the same direction on an empty street at night, the person who's behind keeps some distance between themselves and the person walking ahead. at least, that's what i do if i know i'm walking (NOT FOLLOWING) behind someone, at night. no. he was following/stalking me. would it have been morally right to shoot him? no. he didn't pose a threat, and he didn't make any motion toward me, but i wouldn't have to have known that under stand your ground. the whole point of the law is so you don't have to wait for someone to directly threaten you before you can stand your ground and use force.

I think you're quite wrong on two points:

1. "... he didn't pose a threat, and he didn't make any motion toward me, but i wouldn't have to have known that under stand your ground."

What??? If he doesn't pose a threat and doesn't make any motion toward you, then you would've known he's not a threat. Then you say you wouldn't have to have known that under stand your ground. Um yes, yes you would. By definition, you have to feel threatened for your life or serious bodily injury for you or someone else. If you want to pose a hypothetical situation where you just felt like being evil and shot someone then claimed "stand your ground," then good luck with that. The investigators may not see it the same way. You're rolling the dice.

2. "The whole point of the law is so you don't have to wait for someone to directly threaten you before you can stand your ground and use force."

Wrong! By definition, you must feel gravely threatened. Please read the Florida statute at issue here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

Rather than post the statute here, I'll just say you need to pay particular attention to item #3 in the statute.

And do me a favor -- if you ever buy a gun, please do attend a safety course followed by a course on self-defense. The latter will serve you well.

[mamabearCali]

were channeling each other again silentservicevet. I was just about to post almost exactly what you said, but you did it first.

[joeshmo]

The police have put out their version of what they think happened.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager

seems to side with Zimmerman quite a bit.

Looks like there are some witnesses who can back up zimmerman claim....

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -zimmerman

[Kreutz]

but it is harder for a bunch of lunatics to complain about the results of a grand jury than about a DA.

Thing is the future community organizers making the most of this are not going to be swayed by facts, logic, or reality. If the grand jury says everything was kosher, to them its just proof of endemic racism in the courts. The complaining will continue.

As the grand jury is of the people they will be harder to call racist and have it stick.

hope so.

[mamabearCali]

but it is harder for a bunch of lunatics to complain about the results of a grand jury than about a DA.

Thing is the future community organizers making the most of this are not going to be swayed by facts, logic, or reality. If the grand jury says everything was kosher, to them its just proof of endemic racism in the courts. The complaining will continue.

As the grand jury is of the people they will be harder to call racist and have it stick.

hope so.

I hope so too.

[justsomeguy]

@SilentServiceVet

dude, how are you telling me it's unlikely when it happened to me? i was walking from school, and i saw the guy (a homeless man) from across the street. this is chicago. i then followed my normal route to my destination: crossing streets to get to my normal path, and i noticed that the man had got up from his initial position and he was also walking until he managed to get behind my route. i told you, i was carrying something big and cumbersome, so i could not walk as fast as i normally would, but i started walking faster when i felt like i was being followed. then we came to the point where i turned around. he asked me for some money, and i told him no i didn't have any (a lie). he turned around and headed back to where he came from, i presume. then i felt bad, so i said "hey! this is all i got." at which point i gave him some spare change i had in my pocket. end.

homeless people in chicago usually just beg for money during the day, which is why it shocked me when he followed me and asked me for change at night, especially since he could clearly see that i was burdened by a heavy bag. and he had to have known that he would seem suspicious. either way, he did it. usually they just hunker down over a heating grate when night comes, but this one didn't.
i honestly thought i was going to get mugged, but you're saying that that doesn't matter and stand your ground wouldn't apply? i was prepared for whatever he was going to do, and i can't remember if i had my box-cutter on me that time. i used to carry it on trains and at night, but i never really wanted to have to defend myself with it.

i can see how stand your ground wouldn't have applied because although i was afraid, i didn't technically fear for my life because i didn't know his intent. i assumed he was a mugger, but i was wrong.

but SilentServiceVet, why would trayvon martin wait to attack george zimmerman when he could have just attacked martin when (by martin's account) he and martin were staring at each other? i don't know of an attacker with malicious intent who stares at you and runs away/tries to evade a perfect stranger(non police officer). it seems to me that trayvon martin feared some aspect of george zimmerman, and waited for zimmerman to get to a point where he could try to gain the upperhand on him. at this point, it seems to me that they probably struggled with martin taking down zimmerman. martin beats zimmerman, one of the men yells for help. zimmerman somehow manages to get to his weapon, fires a shot at martin, martin grabs the gun before a second shot can be fired, and goes down. but why would martin wait to go after a stranger for no reason? he phone call to the girlfriend (if it is credible) seems to reveal that martin believed he was being followed, which he was. and the events probably unfolded like i outlined.

thank you for being clear, informative and logical in your responses.

[gunderwood]

I am glad this is going to a grand jury, we have one of the best legal systems in the world (not perfect of course, but better than just about anywhere else), so I have hope that the truth will out.

Grand juries are closed and almost always result in an indictment; the prosecutor has free reign to say anything since no one else is there to refute him.

This should have never gone this far, but, the meme that if you defend yourself from a black attacker you will be royally screwed must be promulgated, so, here we are.

This is not my paranoia talking, I see no other reason for this to teach whitey (and hispaney?) a lesson. Better to submit and die than resist, which is racist.

Furthermore, the grand jury's instructions from the bench and structure are such that practically anything but an indictment is very difficult. Having served on a GJ, we did try to throw one case out (yes, a only a single one in three months!) and the judge permitted the prosecutor to withdraw it and try again with a different GJ. Only in high profile cases does the GJ have any real authority to reject the governments claims.

[mamabearCali]

Really, wow. Informative and scary gunderwood! So what is the point of a GJ then?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]