Trayvon Martin

Seems to apply both ways. I guess we'll see when all of the evidence comes to light and the investigations are complete.

 

Zimmerman's following was certainly a necessary condition for the contact. However, if Zimmerman is correct that he was walking back to his car, the it was likely Martin who initiated the contact.

 

If you want to get technical, the statute is called "stand" your ground ...which is not what he did. He pursued.

It has already been stated it was a poorly written law even by the authors of said law. Are you disputing that?

So if the intent of the law is one thing, there is precedent for 'stand your ground', and it's clearly demonstrated that Zimmerman did not stand his ground ...then the debate is rather shallow.

...but I'll concede debatable nonetheless.

I contend it should be debated in court and meanwhile the police should understand the intent of a law and enforce it in a reasonable manor. In this instance, we have a dead child the was shot by an aggressive and antagonistic man. The law was never intended to protect this scenario. ...but I agree that Zimmerman should try to defend himself using this loophole while it is still there. In the meantime, he should be behind bars.

 

I need to spread rep before giving it again to you.

 

The statute says that you get to "stand your ground" anywhere you are legally entitled to be.

And, of course, any subsequent modification of the law would not apply to this case. Legislative history may shed further light, but the statutory language itself seems quite clear.

 

Huh? The contact has already been made.

We have no evidence to suggest Zimmerman was walking back to his car. Even if her was, you don't know how he was walking back. He could have been yelling over his shoulder back at the kid and continually antagonizing him. We have no clue and isn't relevant.

Fact is: Zimmerman instigated the event. After that, Zimmerman loses his right to use deadly force.

The only caveat is if Zimmerman had a witness that could, without any doubt, indicate that he fully disengaged Martin. But without that, the burden of proof should be on Zimmerman to prove he disengaged. Because we know he engaged and we know he used deadly force. Now he needs to prove that deadly forced was justified.

 

...but he wasn't standing, was he? He was walking towards.

 

Sorry, I've been out of touch. I'm trying to reread this thread and get an idea for what I've missed. Are they now saying that Zimmerman was going back to his car and that Trayvon attacked him?

On a side bar, I think it should be law that anytime there is a fatal shooting REGARDLESS of whether it might be self defense/stand your ground/pick your nose, there should be tests for drugs/alcohol. Even a self defense claim would be hurt in my mind if the shooter was drunk/stoned. That seems to be able of potentially impairing the shooters ability to make a rational decision with a weapon.

 

You and I should both hope that public outcry is never enough of a reason to arrest someone.

 

Yes, we agree on that.

 

Eh...

If he was walking away but was saying something over his shoulder and then got attacked he absolutely does NOT lose his right to use deadly force. Me calling you a name doesn't mean I no longer have a right to defend my life.

I don't think that will end up be what happened personally, but if your scenario is what happened then he should face no charges.

 

Actually there is physical evidence that Trayvon was engaged in illegal activity. Assault is illegal.

 

these arguments should be being made in front of a judge....

 

That is where you are wrong. If you willingly put yourself into a confrontation then you no longer are justified to use deadly force. Rather, you will have a very hard time defending yourself in court if the prosecutors can prove that you willfully engaged the big bad scary man.

 

The evidence is his own testimony. We have no evidence to disprove it either. And it certainly is relevant. One could argue that in going back to his car Zimmerman was retreating anyway rather than standing his ground.

And, pending a correction by a Florida attorney, I don't think you have the burden of proof right either.

 

Are you a lawyer?

If my back is turned to someone and I say something and they attack me my life is now legally forfeit? That seems like a stupid rule. (And I doubt it really is one)

 

Absolutely he should ...and in the meantime, Zimmerman should be behind bars.

You don't leave a killer walk if there is ample proof he killed someone. Zimmerman should be arrested, given the chance to defend his position in court and set free, if found innocent.