Summations Only

Is there some reason you used the term "murdered" instead of the more honest term "shot?"

Because I honestly believe that Martin was murdered.If this is not murder, what is? Zimmerman picked out his unarmed victim, stalked him, terrified him, and shot him, when Martin had never laid a finger on Zimmerman nor even done anything to mildly inconvenience him; and moreover Zimmerman shot him at a time when, as we know, Zimmerman must necessarily have been pointing a gun at Martin (since he shot him with it) whereas Martin was holding nothing more threatening than a can of iced tea. Has there ever been any code of morality except the Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" under which this is not considered murder? Is it in the Old Testament or the New? Is it in the Koran, the Twelve Tables, the Pillar of Hammurabi, the immutable laws of the Medes and the Persians? Show it to me, or admit that this is murder as that term has been understood by four millennia of civilization.

Whether YOU think it is murder, fortunately, is irrelevant.It's not murder until it is judged to be murder in a court of law in the US, thank God.

You should prolly start a new thread 'cause this ones gonna go into summation mode.I've been Googlin', but I can't find the actual Florida "Stand Your Ground" legislation. From what I've read, all it means is that you don't have to run from a threat before you shoot it. Some states require you to attempt to flee first and this is in response to that. But again, I haven't read the acutal legislation so I don't really know. He is? I don't think so. He could be found to not have a reasonable reason to feel threatened and then be charged with, well something, but yeah, maybe not murder. I don't think that's how it works; I'm under the impression that he's got to have a reasonable cause to feeling threatened.And if not, then yeah, its shit legislation as youpoint out: If anyone can just say "oh, I felt threatened" and then be immune to criminal prosecution then that ain't right. How do you know all that?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I look forward to seeing some defense attorney try that one on. "Clearly my client has not committed murder. Indeed, his victim, whom he shot five times in the chest, was not murdered by anyone, and so there is no case to try. Because you have not yet found anyone guilty of murder, least of all my client."Either Zimmerman murdered Martin or he didn't. In law the determination of that question is up to a jury, should he ever come to trial. But in fact, Zimmerman murdered Martin, and unless you deny the facts as I have set them forth, it would be more honest of you to say so.---Say, we never tried Hitler for genocide, did we? 'Cos he shot himself, thus avoiding the Nuremberg trials. So apparently he didn't commit crimes against humanity and he never will. Knowing that will be a big relief to the Jews, who supposed that the Holocaust actually happened. Will you tell them or shall I?The facts are facts, whether or not a court has yet recognized them.

I have a feeling it will come down to 12 people in the box.
And from seeing what happened in the Casey Anthony trial I am not certain a conviction will follow any murder where idiots have a doubt beyond reasonable. jmho.

Et tu Godwin?

But so far you have presented no facts to support your use of the term murder.You may think it was murder, but that fortunately is irrelevant.

The phone call Zimmerman made to the police; the phone call that Martin made to his girlfriend; the fact that Zimmerman did not allege that Martin assaulted him; the articles found by the police on the body; the fact that Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin.The facts are pretty much undisputed. What is under dispute, and this boggles the mind, is whether Zimmerman should be held even a teensy bit culpable for the course of action that he chose to pursue.

I've presented all the important facts. If you say that this was not murder, then please accept my invitation, delve back through the past four thousand years of moral philosophy, and find a sense in which it isn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, no, you have not presented all the important facts, except perhaps, all the facts YOU consider important.For example, you did not present the fact that the incident has not yet been presented to a grand jury and that that is already scheduled for next week.Edited by jar, : take out excess 'o'

We don't know if a of that is true. There is some evidence to that effect, but seemingly it doesn't even matter whether it is true. Apparently, Florida law allows you to shoot your way out of scary situations of your own making.

And if that is the case, then it is not 'murder'.

According to this news article*:

quote:

---

The shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin is no longer in the sole hands of local law-enforcement officials, meaning the wheels of justice appear to be moving, after a three-week delay, toward a fuller investigation of whether the shooter killed the 17-year-old in self-defense.

​

On Tuesday came the announcement that Florida's Seminole County will convene a grand jury on April 10 to look into the case, even as a team from the US Justice Department's civil rights division arrived in Sanford, Fla., the community where Trayvon died Feb. 26 after he was shot by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.

​

...

​

The 911 tapes, plus a report Tuesday from a girl who says she was talking with Trayvon on the phone just before the shooting, suggest that Zimmerman may have run after the teen. If true, that could allow the Justice Department to help draw the line on so-called Stand Your Ground laws and reaffirm civil rights protections for young men who draw suspicion by virtue of their skin color.

​

...

​

He didn't stand his ground; he was hunting, says Alan Lizotte, dean of the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany in New York.

​

...

​

In Florida, the lawmaker who sponsored the 2005 Stand Your Ground law said Monday that the statute was not intended to protect people who sought conflict, and some Florida legislators have vowed to hold hearings on whether to amend the law.

​

No matter what your position is on [race or guns], nobody believes that your rights extend to the right to kill innocent and unarmed children on [public property], says Professor Wright. No member of the NRA would disagree with me on that.

​

Others say that, as evidence has mounted, the case has become less about the Stand Your Ground law and more about a central civil rights question: If the racial roles had been reversed, would an arrest have been made?

---

*it was just the top of the list

What makes that so apparent? Have you found the actual legislation?ABE:I think I found it:Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

quote:

---

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Dwelling means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) Vehicle means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

---

But I'm gonna head out, so I won't be replying for a while, maybe not until tomorrow.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.