Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial  (Read 45266 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Skookum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Truth is the new hate speech.
Re: Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial
« Reply #345 on: September 16, 2012, 12:44:17 AM »
It's a question of how one defends himself and whether lethal force was justified.  No one disputes that GZ could fight back.  The question is whether the law allows GZ to escalate this fist fight and to use lethal force.

A single shot from a handgun is, about 80% of the time, not fatal.  If you assume repeated blows to the head are not life threatening, how can you assume a single shot from a handgun is life threatening?  And, how many blows to the head are you willing to absorb before drawing your weapon?  Once you draw your weapon, how many times would you shoot?

There's no evidence of head slams beyond 2 small cuts on the back of his head.  If his head was getting SLAMMED against the ground, he'd have bruising, large contusions, perhaps even a concussion.  Instead, he got a black eye, a broken nose and a couple small cuts.  I suspect his head scraped the ground when he got hit, but that's a farcry from him getting his head slammed on pavement.

GZ appears to have had the great fortune of being on his back when his head was slammed repeatedly on the pavement; thus, not having far to travel with each slam, his head the trauma was insufficient to evoke your compassion.  Please enlighten me with the number head blows a law-abiding citizen must absorb before you are willing to grant such citizen permission to defend himself with potentially lethal force?

What's clear is GZ did lose the fight.  Did he get punched?  Yes.  Did he end up on the ground?  Yes.  Was his life in imminent danger?  Who knows.  I've seen fist fights with way worse injuries than GZ sustained and no one was worried about someone dying.

Again, how many head blows must one absorb before one may conclude one's life is in imminent danger?  How long must one call out for help while having one's head repeatedly bludgeoned before concluding help isn't coming snd you are on your own?  Apparently you believe 40+ seconds is insufficient.  How is one supposed to keep accurate track of the numbers of blows and the time while being savagely beaten?

There is ear-witness and audio evidence indicating that plenty of people heard the fight and GZ's cries for help, but none responded -- because they feared for their lives!!  One mother is heard to order her son away from the window because of her fear for his life and safety.  I am amazed that no one is criticizing these witnesses for their fear preventing them from intervening in a way that could have saved a life, but the person being subjected to the savage beating for some reason must be held to a higher standard of judgment.

What if TM wasn't a 160lb male, but what if instead he was a WEREWOLF!  Then surely GZ could defend himself right?  Changing the facts gets us no where - this wasn't a little girl fighting, this was 2 equally sized guys in a fist fight.  Talking about GZ being someone's wife or child is nonsense.

Presenting you with altered circumstances is resulting in some progress.  You now admit that self defense with a gun is legitimate in some circumstances.  What if your wife or daughter were being savagely beaten by a female thug of size equal to hers?  How many blows to her head would you instruct her to absorb before you gave her permission to draw her weapon?

As far as why he got out of the car, yes, it's clear why - he lost sight of TM and went looking for him.   ::)  What's abundantly clear is that GZ could have avoided this encounter if he chose to do so.  He didn't.

More progress?  You did not use the inapplicable word, "pursuit."  GZ also stated that he went to look for the address of the building TM disappeared behind so the dispatcher could inform the responding officer how to more easily locate GZ when he arrived.

What is painfully clear is that TM could have easily avoided this encounter if he chose to do so.  TM chose poorly.

Also, talk of legal corruption and the like is just nonsense here.  If I've seen any corruption involved so far, it's GZ attempting to circumvent his bail through shady money transfers and lying under oath.

Talk about legal corruption is always appropriate in the face of legal corruption -- unless you are an anti-American progressive spouting political correctness nonsense, which I assume you are not.

This isn't an open and shut case of self defense ...

It most certainly is based on the lame arguments emanating from the prosecution topped with healthy doses of prosecutorial and judicial corruption.

[N]or is it some racially motivated hate crime.

It most certainly is based on the biased and corrupt reporting by the media, the calls by racists for GZ's death, and the corrupt way the state is pandering to the racist mob.  This is a classic case of racism in action -- a coalition of black racists and white progressive racists doing everything in their power to persecute a helpless Hispanic black man of Jewish ancestry.  Gun control has its ugly roots in racism, making its first big appearance in the wake of the Civil War as a way to control blacks.  Some things don't change.

It's a fist fight that escalated to a shooting, and it's not clear that the shooter is free from any and all blame for this outcome.  How much blame, if any, requires a jury to sort it out.  While it's unlikely 2nd degree murder sticks, I'm still not convinced a lesser charge of manslaughter is not appropriate for GZ.

It is also a school suspension that escalated into a shooting.   It is also a mixed martial arts beatdown that escalated into a shooting.  Who cares?  What is relevant is the facts (not some story fabricated by an intimidate jury) and the law.

GZ hasn't been charged with manslaughter.  He may be guilty of stealing cookies at some point in his life, but he hasn't been charged with that, either. ;D

Browning Challenger III, .22 Long Rifle, Glossy Blue
CZ 83, 9 Browning Court, Satin Nickel
CZ 75 Compact, 9 Luger, Dual Tone
CZ 82, 9 Makarov, Czechoslovak Peoples' Army Black
CZ 83, 7.65 Browning, Glossy Blue
Beretta 3032 Tomcat, .32 Auto, Inox

Offline Stogies

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial
« Reply #346 on: September 16, 2012, 08:47:00 AM »
It's a rather murky case with a lot of important factors not being known to us (or at least not to me). What we may never know is what exactly went down when the 2 men came face to face. And yes, both were men, showing baby pictures of the young man killed doesn't shrink him back in size to that day. Neither does the fact that he was unarmed mean that he could not have killed Zimmermann (getting your head slammed to the ground is a pretty good way to get seriously injured or killed I believe).

What happened when they came face to face, I wonder?

Offline bozwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1748
Re: Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial
« Reply #347 on: September 16, 2012, 10:22:21 AM »
I don't mean any offense by this, but I think your lack of knowledge of how the legal system works leads you to erroneous conclusions about "legal corruption" and the like.  A better understanding of the law might help you to really understand the requirements in that statute and what's required for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case sufficient to bring such a lawsuit.  Also, then you would also then stop making silly arguments about shooting someone not being "lethal force."  ::)  Where there's no dispute that party A shot party B, and there are facts that cut both ways when it comes to self defense, they've established their prima facie case.   

Also, you seem to suggest I don't think a justified self-defense shooting can occur - if that was the case, I wouldn't carry a gun.  I've also said multiple times in this thread that I suspect GZ will get off or that the jury will find him guilty of a lesser charge (which the jury here can do).

Would I have shot back in GZ's shoes in this situation?  Very likely.  But then again, I wouldn't go pursuing someone that I suspected had ill intentions, once I had called the police.  Regardless, as a purely legal matter, this should go before a jury, as there are some disputed facts that a jury needs to resolve. 

In any event, you seem to be taking this personally and I don't really want to give a crash course in criminal law.  This will be my last post for this discussion.