George Zimmerman Trial

[Irish Houstonian]

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone for following you or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

I guess it just depends on personal taste, but I personally like Self-Defense. Note that you can't really just "kill someone" for "following you" -- in every Self-Defense claim you have to have reasonably believed you were at imminent risk of subtantial physical injury.

At the margin there are always going to be cases we don't feel are right, and I think this is one of them, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to throw out the doctrine with the bathwater.

Here, if it were me, playing Louie XIII and passing judgment from under my apple tree, I would at least give Zimmerman maybe 5 years probation for carrying a loaded gun and not running away or just letting it go. But due process demands non-arbitrary classifications based on doctrines and not my own feelings. And if what Zimmerman says is true then he's just not guilty of any crime under Florida law.

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly are you trying to troll or are you this obtuse? It is not legal to kill some one who is simply following you.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I wasn't being obtuse in any sense. I also never said that the law implied that it is legal to kill someone for following you. I said that the law states that you are allowed to kill someone that attacks you, which according to your link, is the basis of the FL law. My question was that if that is indeed the law. It means that it is legal for someone to simply go to Florida and start following someone. If that person attacks them, they can shoot them. Am I wrong?

 

[FLDomer]

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone for following you or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

I wasn't being obtuse in any sense. I also never said that the law implied that it is legal to kill someone for following you. I said that the law states that you are allowed to kill someone that attacks you, which according to your link, is the basis of the FL law. My question was that if that is indeed the law. It means that it is legal for someone to simply go to Florida and start following someone. If that person attacks them, they can shoot them. Am I wrong?

Ok?

 

[woolybug25]

Ok?

You knew what I meant, quit acting like you don't.

I'll rephrase my comment to accomadate your sensibilities....

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone that fights when confronted about stalking or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

Is that better? Or do you have any other insults you would like to sling before actually answering the question?

 

[FLDomer]

You knew what I meant, quit acting like you don't.

I'll rephrase my comment to accomadate your sensibilities....



Is that better? Or do you have any other insults you would like to sling before actually answering the question?

Wooly in all honesty Im not trying to insult you and I was confused because typed/written words it is sometime tough to know what someone "means" when the words are all I read. I apologize for calling you obtuse. Hug?

 

[NDTampa]

Anybody watching this witness now?

She had a blue toot on.

Anybody know what a blue toot is?

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly in all honesty Im not trying to insult you and I was confused because typed/written words it is sometime tough to know what someone "means" when the words are all I read. I apologize for calling you obtuse. Hug?

Since you don't have an opinion on my original question, how but I agree to not direct any more posts to you and you quit responding to my posts? That would be better solution.

 

[FLDomer]

Since you don't have an opinion on my original question, how but I agree to not direct any more posts to you and you quit responding to my posts? That would be better solution.

God you are angry, very un-dude like.... I will answer your question when I read the actual Law, no I do not think its stupid and you are feeling if you life is in danger than you do have the right to stand your ground.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Anybody watching this witness now?

She had a blue toot on.

Anybody know what a blue toot is?

In the South, I think they say that's what happens when a woman rides a horse too long.

 

[Emcee77]

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone for following you or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

This is similar to what Redbar was saying the other day in this thread, with his hypothetical about klansmen and neo-Nazis.

The sucky thing is, that's the law. You have the right to be offensive or obnoxious (up to a point; if your offensiveness or obnoxiousness rises to the level of harassment, you could get in trouble). You do not have the right to physically defend yourself against non-physically offensive or obnoxious people. So it doesn't seem right that Zimmerman could stalk Martin because he is a virulent racial profiler who assumes that all black kids in his neighborhood are up to no good, and then claim self-defense when Martin attacked him -- but it's the law. Being a dumb bigot is not against the law; the First Amendment "protects the thought that we hate." If Zimmerman didn't physically confront Martin, and Martin attacked him anyway, he probably has a valid self-defense claim.

 

[woolybug25]

God you are angry, very un-dude like.... I will answer your question when I read the actual Law, no I do not think its stupid and you are feeling if you life is in danger than you do have the right to stand your ground.

So you feel that:

1) Anyone should have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger, regardless of whether they caused themselves that danger?

2) Everyone should reserve the right to deadly force, regardless of whether the person they using it on was seemingly protecting themselves as well?

Let me know if either is unclear before twisting it into some bizarre statement this time. As I stated before, if that is the law, then nothing is there to stop someone from simply going to Florida, following strangers until they attack, then shooting them. It also means that when Zimmerman fought back, TM should have had the legal right to kill him, right?

 

[woolybug25]

This is similar to what Redbar was saying the other day in this thread, with his hypothetical about klansmen and neo-Nazis.

The sucky thing is, that's the law. You have the right to be offensive or obnoxious (up to a point; if your offensiveness or obnoxiousness rises to the level of harassment, you could get in trouble). You do not have the right to physically defend yourself against non-physically offensive or obnoxious people. So it doesn't seem right that Zimmerman could stalk Martin because he is a virulent racial profiler who assumes that all black kids in his neighborhood are up to no good, and then claim self-defense when Martin attacked him -- but it's the law. Being a dumb bigot is not against the law; the First Amendment "protects the thought that we hate." If Zimmerman didn't physically confront Martin, and Martin attacked him anyway, he probably has a valid self-defense claim.

So according to this law (and how it reads when I read it as well) is that one has to actually wait to be attacked in order to use the deadly force, correct? So my analogy of simply going to Florida and stalking people until they attack you, then shooting them is correct. Right?

If so, then I fundamentally disagree with the law.

 

[gkIrish]

So you feel that:

1) Anyone should have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger, regardless of whether they caused themselves that danger?

2) Everyone should reserve the right to deadly force, regardless of whether the person they using it on was seemingly protecting themselves as well?

Let me know if either is unclear before twisting it into some bizarre statement this time. As I stated before, if that is the law, then nothing is there to stop someone from simply going to Florida, following strangers until they attack, then shooting them. It also means that when Zimmerman fought back, TM should have had the legal right to kill him, right?

So, is your underlying opinion that someone should be able to attack someone who is stalking them? As opposed to say calling the authorities?

 

[woolybug25]

So, is your underlying opinion that someone should be able to attack someone who is stalking them? As opposed to say calling the authorities?

If someone is stalking you and refuse to stop, I absolutely believe that you should be able to use non-lethal force to protect yourself. That is after simply trying to leave and verbal acknowledgement has been asserted.

I do not believe that you should be able to use lethal force on someone simply because they choose to invoke that right. If someone is being attacked without provication, then I have no problem with that person using lethal force if it is reasonable to believe that their life is in danger.

Where I bare issue is when one reserves the right to kill, simply because they are being attacked, regardless of provication. I was raised to believe that if you mess with the bull, you get the horn. This law seems to state that if you mess with the bull... no worries, just shoot the bull.

 

[gkIrish]

If someone is stalking you and refuse to stop, I absolutely believe that you should be able to use non-lethal force to protect yourself. That is after simply trying to leave and verbal acknowledgement has been asserted.

I do not believe that you should be able to use lethal force on someone simply because they choose to invoke that right. If someone is being attacked without provication, then I have no problem with that person using lethal force if it is reasonable to believe that their life is in danger.

Where I bare issue is when one reserves the right to kill, simply because they are being attacked, regardless of provication. I was raised to believe that if you mess with the bull, you get the horn. This law seems to state that if you mess with the bull... no worries, just shoot the bull.

I disagree on this. I don't think you should be able to use any physical force against someone unless they have used physical force against you.

Those same people you referred to earlier who are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone could beat a kid up and claim that the kid was stalking them.

Edit: at least with the way it is now, you have to have concrete proof of injury before you retaliate. Under your system, you just have to allege someone was stalking you.

 

[FLDomer]

So you feel that:

1) Anyone should have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger, regardless of whether they caused themselves that danger?

2) Everyone should reserve the right to deadly force, regardless of whether the person they using it on was seemingly protecting themselves as well?

Let me know if either is unclear before twisting it into some bizarre statement this time. As I stated before, if that is the law, then nothing is there to stop someone from simply going to Florida, following strangers until they attack, then shooting them. It also means that when Zimmerman fought back, TM should have had the legal right to kill him, right?

By your examples, no and I would agree with you.

BUT that is not what the law states (read link I posted earlier). We do not know if Zimmerman fought back but if he did and it was because TM was the physical aggressor (GZs claim) than he fought back in self defense than NO TM had no right to kill GZ.

I also have not twisted anything you have posted into bizarre statements I was replying to your typed words, I apologize if I did not read between the lines for what you meant.

 

[woolybug25]

I disagree on this. I don't think you should be able to use any physical force against someone unless they have used physical force against you.

I hear what you're saying, but if my wife is being stalked in a dark parking lot by a large man, and she a) tries to flee and b) tells him to leave her alone. Then I would want her to not wait for the man to attack her to fight back.

But again, I hear what you are saying.

 

[woolybug25]

By your examples, no and I would agree with you.

BUT that is not what the law states (read link I posted earlier). We do not know if Zimmerman fought back but if he did and it was because TM was the physical aggressor (GZs claim) than he fought back in self defense than NO TM had no right to kill GZ.

I also have not twisted anything you have posted into bizarre statements I was replying to your typed words, I apologize if I did not read between the lines for what you meant.

Oddly enough, I am having trouble following your wording in the quote above. But instead of accusing you of being a troll or obtuse, I will simply ask for clarification without confrontation or patronizing. From your comments, it sounds like we can agree to communicate in this manner. I'm pleased with that.

So do you or do you not agree with the law as written? It seems to me (and you from how I am reading your post) that you do not agree with it. As you do not think that someone should be able to use lethal force if they provoked the physical danger. If so, my opinion is that Zimmerman caused himself the physical confrontation by the continued stalking of TM. By his own admission, he never contacted him about being in the neighborhood watch and even ignored suggestions to stop stalking him.

I do not believe that he earned the right to use lethal force.

 

[GoIrish41]

May have heard this wrong on the radio yesterday, but I thought Zimmerman's defense isn't going to go the Stand Your Ground route.

 

[FLDomer]

Oddly enough, I am having trouble following your wording in the quote above. But instead of accusing you of being a troll or obtuse, I will simply ask for clarification without confrontation or patronizing. From your comments, it sounds like we can agree to communicate in this manner. I'm pleased with that.

So do you or do you not agree with the law as written? It seems to me (and you from how I am reading your post) that you do not agree with it. As you do not think that someone should be able to use lethal force if they provoked the physical danger. If so, my opinion is that Zimmerman caused himself the physical confrontation by the continued stalking of TM. By his own admission, he never contacted him about being in the neighborhood watch and even ignored suggestions to stop stalking him.

I do not believe that he earned the right to use lethal force.

Apologies for the **** poor wording on my part, trying to answer and wrap up work. I agree with the law as I understand/interperate (sp) it and I think you and I have disagreement on the interpretation of the law. I don't have much more time to type, but look to gkish's post as I am pretty much in agreement with him. AGAIN I apologize for calling you obtuse....oh and asking if you were trolling.

 

[woolybug25]

Apologies for the **** poor wording on my part, trying to answer and wrap up work. I agree with the law as I understand/interperate (sp) it and I think you and I have disagreement on the interpretation of the law. I don't have much more time to type, but look to gkish's post as I am pretty much in agreement with him. AGAIN I apologize for calling you obtuse....oh and asking if you were trolling.

I hear ya. I agree that we are probably interpreting the law differently. Here is how I view the section of the law you quoted earlier, i'm interested in your interpretation:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place

One could argue that GZ was engaging in unlawful activities by repeated stalking of a minor that did not want him doing so, but that will not be my point on this one. My point on this section would go to the fact that it seems that GZ may have provoked this attack with said stalking. If so, I fundamentally disagree with him being able to use deadly force based on the fact that TM's attack may have been provoked by GZ's actions.

where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat

This part I think we can all agree on. GZ had multiple opportunities to retreat. He was even recommended to retreat several times before the attack, which he chose to ignore.

and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This is a blurry section. It's clear that GZ believed that he could have great bodily harm, but I suppose its for a jury to decide if he believed that he was facing death. I think all reasonable minds can agree that GZ didn't believe that he was witnessing a felony in progress.

 

[NDohio]

What really gets me in this case is that many of the people I come in contact with who believe that GZ had every right to follow/confront TM are the same people that would throw an absolute fit if they were innocently walking down the street, carrying with a permit, and would be approached. TM, so it seems, did nothing to deserve the stalking he was receiving.

 

[ND NYC]

I'm with Wooly (and others) on all of this.

GZ started and provoked this whole thing. then got his *** kicked by the kid, and ended up shooting him.

another example why trained and uniformed law enforcement should be the guys carrying the guns--not these wannabe cops/hacks like GZ.

 

[Booslum31]

This. I've felt this way from the onset. Neighborhood Watch programs are typically a good idea but this has just seemed over the top to me.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Supposedly the "star witness" (Martin's girlfriend) couldn't read in court the letter she claimed to have written, because she "can't read cursive".

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting - ABC News

 

[IrishLax]

Supposedly the "star witness" (Martin's girlfriend) couldn't read in court the letter she claimed to have written, because she "can't read cursive".

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting - ABC News

.........................................

 

[Emcee77]

Supposedly the "star witness" (Martin's girlfriend) couldn't read in court the letter she claimed to have written, because she "can't read cursive".

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting - ABC News

Wow.

And her testimony was really bad for Zimmerman:

"I say, 'Trayvon,' and then he said, 'Why are you following me for?'" Jeantel testified. "And then I heard a hard-breathing man come say, 'What you doing around here?' ... And then I was calling, 'Trayvon, Trayvon.' And then I started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off.'"

but all of a sudden she has major credibility issues.

I wonder if Zimmerman's lawyers even knew that she wouldn't be able to read it when they asked her to. If not, they had to be absolutely giddy. Devastating cross-exam.

And that's why they play the games ...

 

[mgriff]

Crazy *** crackers...

 

[IrishLax]

It's funny that they accused Zimmerman of being the racist one and that was his "motive" for murder... yet it's totally cool for Martin to have called him a "crazy *** cracker"...

 

[goldandblue]

So let me get this right... Some of you think GZ is a murderer because he was suspicious of a person in his or his sisters neighborhood. As an active member or volunteer of a neighborhood watch he chose to follow the person of suspicion. The person attacked him and he shot them?

Jesus Christ People.

And people wonder what is happening to our country...