Yes ... ONE Thing that The Feds may be doing right now in Florida is examining not only THIS Case, but also reviewing SIMILAR Cases for Civil Rights Violations, with an Eye to Appealing and eventally Overturning the ENTIRE Florida "Murder-for-Sport" Law ...

Apr 18, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Cesmom wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:13PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:08PM, mindis1 wrote:

A number of people here seem to think that Zimmerman should be convicted on second degree murder charges. My question is: given the following law, which is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, what did Zimmerman do wrong?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person. -- A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...

Several comments on this and other threads suggest that Zimmerman is guilty because he pursued Martin. But, as you will notice, this law does not in any way forbid someone from pursuing the person he eventually kills. Several of the defendants in the dismissed cases first chased the people they eventually killed.

So no one else here is going to bite?  Am I hearing this correctly?

Did everyone decide that, given the law, Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted for second degree murder?

I don't think a lot of people thought it was second degree murder to begin with.  Manslaughter seems more appropriate.  Obviously, this situation showcases the glaring flaws in the Stand Your Ground law.  Beyond that, it sounds like the burden of proof that he was acting in self defense should still fall on Zimmerman.  

If this law allows someone to pursue and then kill, and all they have to do is cry self-defense, then the law is essentially making it perfectly legal to murder anyone you don't like...so long as you're a decent liar and lucky enough for there not to be any witnesses around.

The Jury can -- may well -- find him "Guilty" of a "lesser, included Offense," i.e., some Degree of "Manslaughter" ...

At SENTENCING, however, The Trial Judge may ALSO -- very well -- depart upward or downward from "Sentencing Guidelines" based upon the Facts of the entire Case, including the Innocence and (relatively TENDER) Age of The Victim, Circumstances of the Crime, the Propensities and History of The Offender, as determined in the Pre-Sentence Investigation, which takes into Account Evidence that was NOT admitted at Trial, seen/heard by The Jury ...

Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:40PM, Marcion wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Cesmom wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:13PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:08PM, mindis1 wrote:

A number of people here seem to think that Zimmerman should be convicted on second degree murder charges. My question is: given the following law, which is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, what did Zimmerman do wrong?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person. -- A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...

Several comments on this and other threads suggest that Zimmerman is guilty because he pursued Martin. But, as you will notice, this law does not in any way forbid someone from pursuing the person he eventually kills. Several of the defendants in the dismissed cases first chased the people they eventually killed.

So no one else here is going to bite?  Am I hearing this correctly?

Did everyone decide that, given the law, Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted for second degree murder?

I don't think a lot of people thought it was second degree murder to begin with.  Manslaughter seems more appropriate.  Obviously, this situation showcases the glaring flaws in the Stand Your Ground law.  Beyond that, it sounds like the burden of proof that he was acting in self defense should still fall on Zimmerman.  

If this law allows someone to pursue and then kill, and all they have to do is cry self-defense, then the law is essentially making it perfectly legal to murder anyone you don't like...so long as you're a decent liar and lucky enough for there not to be any witnesses around.

It's an old legal ploy, charge him with a higher offense so can plea bargain to a lesser charge.

Few people believe Zimmerman committed second degree murder, if he doesn't plea bargain the prosecution will have a tough case.

Manslaughter is IMO going to be the way it will ultimately go.

What a ClusterF this whole thing has been in the media!

Regardless this is a highly tragic sitation.  We have one young man dead.  He might not have been an angel but he had the same kind of potential of any boy his age.   Also, this is a death of sorts for Zimmerman.  He will never move in the world the same way.  He will always have this incredible burden to carry.  The burden is regardless of what Martin had done.  If Zimmerman had behaved more wisely none of this would have occured.  Martin would still be alive eating Skittles.  Zimmerman would still be a kind of misguided Neighboorhood watch freak.  Say what you will about Zimmerman, I do think he was a bit of a time bomb.  He never saw himself as the "bad guy"  He saw himself as the protector, the up-holder of the law.  Now a boy is dead and more or less the blame is his.  What level his culpability is being worked out now by the justice system but he is culpbable.  I can't help but pity him. 

Are they ALSO showing Photos of the Bullet Wound in the Kid's Body ... ??? Just asking ...

Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:58AM, Cesmom wrote:

ABC is now showing a picture that they say was taken of the injury to the back of Zimmerman's head right after the shooting.  If this is legitimate, it would show that there was definitely a physical altercation between them before Trayvon was shot.  Even if that's true, the host makes a good point that many have been making all along...

“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”

www.mediaite.com/tv/gma-shows-exclusive-...

(IMHO) Part of what's really, really, really WRONG in American Society today is that we don't have "Neighbors" anymore, but "Competitors" ...

We've been relentessly encouraged to FEAR "Others" and regard them as Hostile Dangerous Interlopers at best ... and Targets at worst ...

Apr 20, 2012 -- 6:36PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

mindis1:  Notice in 776.012(1) that in order to justify the use of deadly force a person only needs to “reasonably believe[] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”. Justifiable homicide under this law does not require that no pursuit occur prior to when the person “reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] necessary . . .”

I'm aware that the whine is that he felt he was in danger.  What I'm calling is BS on whether or not he was.  I realize he might get off scot-free because he's a paranoid moron, but then again I don't call 911 when my non-white neighbors go outside to get their mail, neither.

teilhard:  So ... IOW, you think it WAS entirely "justifiable" Self-Defense IF Trayvon Martin HAD been attempting to BEAT the LIFE out of The "Night Stalker" Guy, who WAS after all, carrying a DEADLY  WEAPON as he stalked the INNOCENT Teenager ... ??? (Or does The Law protect ONLY White Guys with Guns ... ???)

That's what gets me:  that Zimmerman can claim self-defense at all.  Even if Martin beat the crap out of him, he deserved it for being a paranoid moron.  He chased the kid with a frickin' GUN.  It's not Zimmerman who should be claiming self-defense, but I guess "self-defense" only works if you're the one left standing, huh?  I guess if you're the killer and left standing, "self-defense" arguments are yours to make, even if they belonged the dead one.

Erey:  He will never move in the world the same way.  He will always have this incredible burden to carry.

I'd feel more sorry for him if he wasn't the one who made that burden by being an asshole.

I think his problem was calling 911 at all.  He should've just hunted the kid down ('cause that's really what it was) and THEN called to say he'd been attacked by some hoodlum.  However, the idiot decided to call first, so we can all hear how he decided not to follow law enforcement's advice.  *sarcastic applause*