Summations Only

That's good news. Thanks for pointing it out, it still isn't top of my list when I google; nor on the first page, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth ... possibly because it only came out 48 minutes ago.I note that unless the story is missing some details, he still hasn't been charged by the police (something which is not necessary to empanel a grand jury).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Reminiscent of the case where a Texan shot and killed two men who had burglarized the house next door and was acquitted of any crime. Unarmed men, but Mexicans.....

"If the racial roles had been reversed, would an arrest have been made?"Within milliseconds.

Yes it is.This is pathetic.Suppose the courts decided that lynching was OK. Would it still be murder to kill a black man? Not in law, but in fact and in conscience would it be murder for a bunch of Klansmen to take a man who had committed no crime but being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time, douse him in gasoline, and burn him alive?Good grief, by your criteria we couldn't say that Cain murdered Abel, since there were no courts to say that he did. Hitler didn't murder any Jews, since he escaped Nuremberg. Fred West didn't murder anyone, since despite his confession and all the bones in his back yard, he killed himself before trial. No-one whosoever murdered Nicole Simpson. It's not just that OJ didn't murder her --- despite all the stab wounds and the fact that she was dead, no-one murdered her because no-one has been convicted.This is lunacy, jar, this is moral and epistemological lunacy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, in that case it would not be murder.Sorry but them's the facts.Cain is not relevant since neither Cain or Able are an American, living today under US Laws.

equivocation much?

Nope, just actually try to be honest and use language honestly.

Try harder.

On the face of the statute, the following appears to allow shootings by a person engaged in lawful activity, such as following an innocent person in such a way as to make that person fearful or angry enough to defend himself. It would not seem to matter whether the threatened person reasonably feared for his safety as long as he was wrong about the shooter's initial intentions.

quote:

---

(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.

---

I haven't read the follow up remarks so maybe this has already been covered. But I wanted to make this point before the thread went into summation.You are wrong. This is not all that is required for a legitimate self defense claim. You must also show that your belief that you were being threatened was objectively reasonable. Otherwise, it would be simplicity itself to avoid any murder charge. Since we know that people are convicted of murder every day, obviously it's not that easy to beat.Although I haven't looked in depth at the Martin case, the question is going to come down to whether what Zimmerman knew at the time was enough to justify a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. I don't know what he claims to have known, so I can't evaluate the merits. But it's quite impossible to accurately evaluate any claim unless you begin with the correct standard. The standard you describe is simply not accurate.{AbE}Having read the rest of the comments, I note that Catholic Scientist provided what is apparently the actual text of the law. You will note that it talks about "reasonable fear." Simply stating you were afraid is not enough if your fear is not reasonable. In the law, when the word "reasonable" is used, overwhelmingly what is meant is objectively using a reasonable person standard.Zimmerman could testify on a stack of bibles that he was afraid. But if the objective facts that he describes are not sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for that fear, a jury could very easily believe that he was actually afraid but still convict him.Edited by subbie, : As noted

No, NoNukes did. What CS quoted would appear to be the Castle Law.

CS's message 435 also contained:

quote:

---

(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.

---

Although the above quoted doesn't seem to cover what seems to be the "vaguely threatened" situation I understand the Trayvon Martin case to be.Reading elsewhere on the internet, my impression was that the shooter was stalking the victim more than the victim being any sort of threat to the shooter. Will re-research this further.Added by edit: This led me to The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained. Seems to be a pretty good article, although not one that I had previously read.Added by another edit (from the Mother Jones article, see there for the greater context):

quote:

---

After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin.

​

"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: "Yep."

​

"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher warned.

---

Sounds like the shooter chased down the victim.Added by yet another edit:CS seems to have covered my previous ABE's in his message 434.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

But legally following someone might reasonably create a situation where said followee objects and challenges you. You might reasonably and accurately, perceive a substantial chance of getting your butt totally kicked in such a situation. The law appears to allow shooting in this situation rather than backing off.And as Dr. Adequate points out, if the teenager was legally armed, he would certainly have been justified in plugging Zimmerman. Is this really the way any sane person wants his neighborhood to work?

Not just appear to, but explicitly allows you to.This is rightwing, NRA crazy taken to the logical end. At least I hope it is the end. Time for the pendulum to swing back.Wait until a black or brown person shoots a white person in similar circumstances. Then we will see the true motive behind the law.

I read the Mother Jones article and all ther comments there (took hours) and it does seem as if this child was hunted down and shot dead for the simple reason of "walking whilst black". Under that definition, Trayvon would have been perfectly entitled to stand his ground, not the idiot who was chasing him. The "stand your ground" defence isn't going to apply to Zimmerman give that he was pursuing Trayvon and, according to Zimmerman's own words, preserved on the 911 recording, Trayvon was running away.You have a minor being tailed by a stranger in an SUV. If it was my kid, I'd want him to run home, get outta there. Right from the start, the only person with reason to be scared was Trayvon. I hope they throw the book at Zimmerman. It's horrifying that he hasn't even been arrested.Edited by Trixie, : The thread must have gone into summation mode while I was writing this post cos I only got the wee message when I hit the "Submit" button.