Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[RainMaker]

I don't know if there is technology that can guarantee who's voice it was. Especially when one of them is dead. Most of the witnesses feel it was Martin, although the police have been trying to convince them it is not.

The other method might be to see how ridiculous it is for the grown man with 100 pound weight advantage and a fully loaded weapon to be the one yelling for help.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

although the police have been trying to convince them it is not.

I know breaking down RainMaker language is always an adventure, but I'll try anyway.

The part that intrigues me here is "the police" (I think that's the police in general) and "have been trying" (i.e. ongoing).

Is this all based on the one report of the the lady who said two officers corrected her at the scene, minutes after the shooting? What did they say exactly? Was it, "Did you mean it was Zimmerman yelling"? Is that the correction that shows the conspiracy/convincing or is there more to it?

Even if it's just a theory, I'd love to see you elaborate on it a bit. Please continue. Are these the same people that you think rigged the Syracuse game in the NCAA tournament?

[cartman]

The lead homicide investigator filed an affidavit the night of the shooting recommending that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. But he was overruled.

Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge - Yahoo!

[RainMaker]

Yes, I am basing it off of a statement that a witness made. And the part where other witnesses who heard the boy cry were blown off and not followed up with. The witnesses are the ones saying this, not me. Maybe they are trying to frame their neighbor!

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, I am basing it off of a statement that a witness made. And the part where other witnesses who heard the boy cry were blown off and not followed up with. The witnesses are the ones saying this, not me. Maybe they are trying to frame their neighbor!

Did the witness say that the police were "trying to convince them" who yelled? Or just that they corrected her/tried to get clarification on the answer/assumed she misspoke?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Did the witness say that the police were "trying to convince them" who yelled? Or just that they corrected her/tried to get clarification on the answer/assumed she misspoke?

Isn't that the same thing? Why would you correct the witness on their account of the incident?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't that the same thing? Why would you correct the witness on their account of the incident?

If I had it stuck in my head that it was Zimmerman that yelled, and I wasn't as open-minded as I should be to new information, when someone said Martin yelled, I might respond, "wait, don't you mean Zimmerman?" Then hopefully they clear it up and can move on with the interview.

"Trying to convince" is a huge allegation. I don't even see that the witnesses alleged that. I think the witness was trying to express that she didn't feel that the police were really listening to her/understanding what she said. It's all on audio recording somewhere and the family will get access to it eventually when they sue the city for millions. Hopefully law enforcement can learn from it if there was poor interview technique there.

Is a conspiracy cooked up in the minutes after the shooting possible (or even before, if the whole thing was premeditated?) I guess, it's possible. But it's ridiculous for you to state it as fact. At least state it as an opinion and present your theory. You freak out if someone talks about Martin's school troubles but you have no problem stating that officers have committed felonies based on a lot less information. (And "trying to convince them" of knowingly false evidence would absolutely be a felony).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Even if he was smoking pot while he was walking through the neighborhood it's not justification to killing him.

Depends upon who you ask I suppose.

[RainMaker]

I'm not floating a conspiracy theory. The police have come out and said they feel it was Zimmerman who was yelling for help, despite what many witnesses say. You are the one floating the conspiracy talk. I don't really care to delve into the semantics of "convincing" and "correcting". The article states what the witness said and that the officer corrected her on it.

We can read into that how we want. Maybe it was an innocent gesture. But the police haven't exactly been honest so far in this case. So their actions should be looked upon with suspicion.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Depends upon who you ask I suppose.

JimGA, I'm genuinely curious about how you would answer the following questions:

1. What makes tobacco use okay and marijuana use a serious offense that merits being shot? Is it simply a question of the former being legal and the latter illegal?

2. If the federal government (re)legalized marijuana and made tobacco use illegal, would you then feel about tobacco users the way that you now feel about marijuana users, which is to say, that shooting tobacco users is no big deal?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by King of New York

JimGA, I'm genuinely curious about how you would answer the following questions:

I'm pretty sure I've done these before, but it's a fair question.

Q1. It's the fundamental lack of respect for the law that's a primary concern for me, yes. The destructive nature of it is secondary but a factor to some extent. Once might be bad judgment, twice is willful misconduct that's counterproductive to society. (hence my previously stated position that it ought to be two strikes & you're out, not three)

Q2. It's a hypothetical, so I can only give you the best answer I've got: if it were illegal, I'd find a way to stop (or better yet, never start, since we're talking about a hypothetical world). And if I didn't, then they could rightfully put a cap in my ass/needle in my arm/etc.

You asked, I took my best shot at answering.

[Mr. Sparkle]

With regard to the yelling, when I listened to the tapes, I heard someone screaming bloody murder for help, then a shot, then silence. Now, if it were Zimmerman yelling, would he IMMEDIATELY fall dead silent after firing a shot? Seems to me that, if I were in that situation, I'd be freaking the fuck out about just shooting a dude and still screaming for help.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure I've done these before, but it's a fair question.

Q1. It's the fundamental lack of respect for the law that's a primary concern for me, yes. The destructive nature of it is secondary but a factor to some extent. Once might be bad judgment, twice is willful misconduct that's counterproductive to society. (hence my previously stated position that it ought to be two strikes & you're out, not three)

Q2. It's a hypothetical, so I can only give you the best answer I've got: if it were illegal, I'd find a way to stop (or better yet, never start, since we're talking about a hypothetical world). And if I didn't, then they could rightfully put a cap in my ass/needle in my arm/etc.

You asked, I took my best shot at answering.

Thanks

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

With regard to the yelling, when I listened to the tapes, I heard someone screaming bloody murder for help, then a shot, then silence. Now, if it were Zimmerman yelling, would he IMMEDIATELY fall dead silent after firing a shot? Seems to me that, if I were in that situation, I'd be freaking the fuck out about just shooting a dude and still screaming for help.

Impossible to speculate how someone would react in that situation.

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's the fundamental lack of respect for the law that's a primary concern for me, yes. The destructive nature of it is secondary but a factor to some extent. Once might be bad judgment, twice is willful misconduct that's counterproductive to society. (hence my previously stated position that it ought to be two strikes & you're out, not three).

This is a very interesting statement considering the context of this thread. We have a man here who might not have broken the law even though his actions seem intuitively wrong. I would consider stalking and killing unarmed teenagers a detriment to society, yet the law may permit us to do that evidently. On the other hand, we celebrate certain acts of civil disobedience such as the Boston Tea Party and Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus for moving society forward. Now I certainly don't mean to compare sparking up a fatty to the the civil rights movement, but it's difficult for me to see the law in black and white when they can be as flawed as the men that create them. But even if you do accept the law absolutely, isn't it a contradiction to believe it's okay to kill someone for minor crimes when the law itself says it isn't?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

With regard to the yelling, when I listened to the tapes, I heard someone screaming bloody murder for help, then a shot, then silence. Now, if it were Zimmerman yelling, would he IMMEDIATELY fall dead silent after firing a shot? Seems to me that, if I were in that situation, I'd be freaking the fuck out about just shooting a dude and still screaming for help.

That appears to be why the ear-witnesses thought it was Martin, they made that assumption that the yelling ended because he was dead. It's plausible, but so is Zimmerman being in shock. The witnesses said they yelled out to him afterwards and it took 3 times before he reacted. And the witnesses can't seem to agree who was on top of who.

But maybe someone has a cell phone video or voicemail message/greeting of Martin's voice that can be compared to the audio. The police have to have Zimmerman on audio from interviews, or he might even be willing to have the the police recording him yelling now (much less likely now that he's lawyered up though). That's my hope, That science can sort it out. If Zimmerman is charged or convicted or not charged or acquitted just based on which testimony the jurors believe or don't believe, that's going to suck.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by fpres

PICKET: Spike Lee re-tweets incorrect address of Trayvon Martin shooter - Washington Times

This motherfucker is such a douche, I hope the couple sues his ass. Way to be responsible Spike....

[RainMaker]

Lets again point out the ridiculousness of the guy with a 110 pound weight advantage and a fully loaded weapon being the one calling for help.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

That appears to be why the ear-witnesses thought it was Martin, they made that assumption that the yelling ended because he was dead. It's plausible, but so is Zimmerman being in shock. The witnesses said they yelled out to him afterwards and it took 3 times before he reacted. And the witnesses can't seem to agree who was on top of who.

But maybe someone has a cell phone video or voicemail message/greeting of Martin's voice that can be compared to the audio. The police have to have Zimmerman on audio from interviews, or he might even be willing to have the the police recording him yelling now (much less likely now that he's lawyered up though). That's my hope, That science can sort it out. If Zimmerman is charged or convicted or not charged or acquitted just based on which testimony the jurors believe or don't believe, that's going to suck.

just who are you trying to convince of what here? Sounds like you've already proven ZImmerman innocent. Sure devil's advocate and all that but come on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TargetPractice6

We have a man here who might not have broken the law even though his actions seem intuitively wrong.

Again here, I'd say intuition is in the eye of the beholder.

But even if you do accept the law absolutely, isn't it a contradiction to believe it's okay to kill someone for minor crimes when the law itself says it isn't?

Whether any law was violated here, by Zimmerman specifically, remains very much in question.

Meanwhile there's also a question somewhere about what's acceptable when the law (and/or the enforcement of it) fundamentally fails.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

just who are you trying to convince of what here? Sounds like you've already proven ZImmerman innocent. Sure devil's advocate and all that but come on.

In the post you quoted I said I thought that two possibilities involving the yelling were plausible, and I expressed a desire that the identify on the voice could be revealed scientifically. Is that really the one you take offense to or is it some other post?

I am a little bit of a contrarian, I admit. But I don't get why I'm the one who has "already proven" anything when its seems to me most everyone else seems know exactly what happened (and knows everything about the law and criminal procedure). I've tried to qualify almost every thought I've expressed with what I don't know or don't understand. And I haven't expressed a lot of opinions at all, let alone make assumptions based on other assumptions based on stuff I just made up (which I need to get over chiming in on, yes).

[RedKingGold]

I wouldn't feel too bad molson, everyone posting in this thread is basing their opinion on beliefs and assumptions.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure I've done these before, but it's a fair question.

Q1. It's the fundamental lack of respect for the law that's a primary concern for me, yes. The destructive nature of it is secondary but a factor to some extent. Once might be bad judgment, twice is willful misconduct that's counterproductive to society. (hence my previously stated position that it ought to be two strikes & you're out, not three)

Q2. It's a hypothetical, so I can only give you the best answer I've got: if it were illegal, I'd find a way to stop (or better yet, never start, since we're talking about a hypothetical world). And if I didn't, then they could rightfully put a cap in my ass/needle in my arm/etc.

You asked, I took my best shot at answering.

Standing on an issue based solely on whether it is legal or illegal?

So... cool with abortion?

[stevew]

IIRC he's way cool with abortion

[gstelmack]

Not defending Zimmerman here, I don't think we have nearly enough info, but from posts above we're still stuck on:

- Zimmerman was stalking him, based on the one 911 where he says he was following. We're completely blowing off the claim that he stopped and was headed to his truck to leave despite no evidence either way yet?
- Zimmerman had a weight advantage so could not possibly feel threatened by Trayvon, despite ample evidence that a good fighter can easily overcome a weight advantage?

I mostly come down on molson's side in this: so many of the contradicting theories are plausible right now, I think we need to let this run it's course before concluding anything. Keep a bit of pressure on to make sure it runs it's course, but you can't conclude anything with finality right now, except that Trayvon is dead.

I also come down on Ben's side in this: with all the media attention jumping on this and all the slants, no matter which way this ends up it's going to be a bad scene, because no one is going to let the evidence either way deter them from thinking what they do about this case, they've already made up their minds. At this point you could find a baseball bat with Trayvon's fingerprints on the handle and Zimmerman's blood on the other end and it won't convince the Sharptons and Jacksons of this world that he was an aggressor in this, or you could find that Trayvon was on his knees and shot in the back of the head and not convince the racists that Zimmerman shot a kid for no good reason.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I mostly come down on molson's side in this: so many of the contradicting theories are plausible right now, I think we need to let this run it's course before concluding anything. Keep a bit of pressure on to make sure it runs it's course, but you can't conclude anything with finality right now, except that Trayvon is dead.

I agree with this statement 100%. We have no idea that what the media is telling us is really the truth. They're going to give us what makes this a sensational story and leave out the details later on. Just look at all of the mis-information about the Columbine incident that came out while it was going on and none of the truth that was reported when it was discovered later on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Standing on an issue based solely on whether it is legal or illegal? So... cool with abortion?

I'll let Steve take this one

Originally Posted by stevew

IIRC he's way cool with abortion

He's obviously been paying attention.

I'm one of the rarest flavors of conservative: a complete pro-choicer. It's just not a top 10 (or even 20) issue with me when it comes to voting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I also come down on Ben's side in this ... because no one is going to let the evidence either way deter them from thinking what they do about this case, they've already made up their minds.

I'd probably add that those sides were largely picked even before you add any details, if you had said (sorta) white guy shoots black teenager & left out most of the rest. There's some of the white guilt crowd that probably gets swayed but otherwise, it seems likely to me that most minds were made up even before we heard about the case.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

At this point you could find a baseball bat with Trayvon's fingerprints on the handle and Zimmerman's blood on the other end and it won't convince the Sharptons and Jacksons of this world that he was an aggressor in this, or you could find that Trayvon was on his knees and shot in the back of the head and not convince the racists that Zimmerman shot a kid for no good reason.

Yeah, this has me scared as well. Why can't our society focus on the facts, and let justice take it's course? Why fan the flames of emotion and threaten lives over it? Why not take the higher road and look for the truth in all the hurt and anger? That was the goal in all of it, not this mob mentality where we need to "get someone right now". Does anyone remember Richard Jewell? His life is still ruined. Can't we grow and learn? Who needs to step up on this? The media and internets certainly aren't going to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Does anyone remember Richard Jewell? His life is still ruined.

Umm ... he died almost five years ago.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... he died almost five years ago.

And that REALLY ruined his life.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Why not take the higher road and look for the truth in all the hurt and anger?

Because hardly anyone with an opinion on the story gives a damn about the truth, nor about Martin or Zimmerman.

Outside of a few family, friends, etc. of each, this is just an opportunity to vent about how we perceive the world & the various injustices we perceive in it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And that REALLY ruined his life.

Yeah, death will kinda f. up your whole day.

Like everyone else before him, he failed the ultimate test: whether or not you can survive death

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

- Zimmerman had a weight advantage so could not possibly feel threatened by Trayvon, despite ample evidence that a good fighter can easily overcome a weight advantage?.

Can we stop with this? He has over 100 pounds on him, a vehicle, and a fully loaded weapon. Yet somehow he is at the disadvantage. Reminds me of when a bunch of people here tried to convince everyone about how a Yorkie was a grave threat to a fully armed SWAT team. If Zimmerman is that big of pussy and that inept at handling himself with all those advantages, maybe he shouldn't stalk strangers at night. 100 pounds and a fucking gun is a huge advantage no matter how many obscure anecdotes people come up with.

OJ should have just told the cops that he was getting beat up by Ron and Nicole and had to save his life. Seems there are people gullible enough to believe that story too.

I know everyone had to politicize this. And now we have to find out if he did things like smoke pot that would justify this. But from a crime standpoint, the excuses coming out are so laughable I'm surprised a country that is so hard on criminals is falling for it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If Zimmerman is that big of pussy and that inept at handling himself with all those advantages, maybe he shouldn't stalk strangers at night.

At least you're finally starting to admit this is a possibility, because we certainly don't know.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can we stop with this? He has over 100 pounds on him, a vehicle, and a fully loaded weapon. Yet somehow he is at the disadvantage.

I really don't get how you can't see that there's a difference between "at a disadvantage" and "losing the fistfight." No real dog in the fight here, but it seems very plausible to me that this fat out of shape dude was getting his ass kicked by a fit 17-year-old.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

At least you're finally starting to admit this is a possibility, because we certainly don't know.

It's also a possibility that Nicole Brown was secretly taking karate classes in her free time and the night of her murder was on the verge of striking a death blow to OJ before he was heroically able to save himself by slicing her throat with the kitchen knife he was graciously coming by to return to her.

When you have to rely on a bunch of improbable scenarios to all magically come together, the story is probably not real.

I know this is all political now. I know people on both sides have their agendas or whatever. But lets drop this dumbing down of the case where we all have to pretend that the guy with 100 pound advantage and a fully loaded weapon was in grave danger. If you think the kid deserved to die because he was wearing a hoodie, might have smoked pot, might have talked back, was black, or whatever else, then so be it. But turning Zimmerman into some poor invalid incapable of tying his own shoes is insulting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I really don't get how you can't see that there's a difference between "at a disadvantage" and "losing the fistfight." No real dog in the fight here, but it seems very plausible to me that this fat out of shape dude was getting his ass kicked by a fit 17-year-old.

Where are you getting the fat out of shape from? Sure he was a big guy, but the pictures dont' depict him as Ralphie May or anything. He was able to chase down the kid multiple times. Not to mention he has been able to put up a fight against others in the past, so he's not some invalid. And for "getting his ass kicked", he didn't require medical attention that night.

And lets assume that Martin did defend himself and it got physical. Isn't that what we teach kids to do when they are being chased? Especially at night by someone much larger. What do you want your kids to do if they are cornered by a stranger who has been stalking them? He tried to get away initially and Zimmerman continued to stalk him. If he had to make a fight or flight response and chose fight, how can you blame him? Every school has cops come in and tell kids to kick, scream, and do whatever they can to avoid whatever the dubious adult is looking to accomplish. How the hell would you react if you're walking home from the store at night and some guy twice your size who you don't know is chasing you around?

This case isn't difficult. The kid was unarmed and doing nothing wrong. It's an overzelous wannabe cop who did something stupid and should pay the price like any other murderer does. Ultimately it's not a big deal to the world since kids get shot all the time and we rarely give a shit. I guess I'm fascinated by the psychological elements of this one. You rarely see people jumping through so many hoops to concoct elaborate hypotheticals to defend a shooter (outside of lawyers). Makes you wonder what makes this case different from those.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Where are you getting the fat out of shape from? Sure he was a big guy, but the pictures dont' depict him as Ralphie May or anything. He was able to chase down the kid multiple times. Not to mention he has been able to put up a fight against others in the past, so he's not some invalid. And for "getting his ass kicked", he didn't require medical attention that night.

His pics make him look like a fatty to me. And I don't recall reading where he chased the kid down multiple times. And he put up a fight against...a woman. Real tough guy there.

And lets assume that Martin did defend himself and it got physical. Isn't that what we teach kids to do when they are being chased? Especially at night by someone much larger. What do you want your kids to do if they are cornered by a stranger who has been stalking them? He tried to get away initially and Zimmerman continued to stalk him. If he had to make a fight or flight response and chose fight, how can you blame him? Every school has cops come in and tell kids to kick, scream, and do whatever they can to avoid whatever the dubious adult is looking to accomplish.

..and if you've read and comprehended anything I've said, you'd understand that I basically agree with all of this part. But it sure looks like that in Florida, if you stop running, throw the first punch, and are winning the fight, the dude with the gun can yell "self defense" after he kills you, and be within his legal rights. You're sounding like the people out there that are evidently missing this critical, critical point. It may not matter that Zimmerman chased him, scared him, made him feel threatened, or any of that.

Let's try putting it this way:

Do I strongly suspect that Zimmerman is the one who initiated the chain of events that led to Martin's death?
Absolutely.

Do I strongly suspect that Zimmerman is likely the primary "bad guy" in this story?
Absolutely.

But does that mean, according to Florida law, that Zimmerman should go to jail?
Unless I believed that Zimmerman chased down Martin and then physically attacked him, I just can't say that and be remotely intellectually honest about the matter.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can we stop with this? He has over 100 pounds on him, a vehicle, and a fully loaded weapon. Yet somehow he is at the disadvantage.

I keep seeing this and while the Gun is a definite advantage, 100 pound weight difference is not if you know how to fight, or if you get in the first blow with some force.

I weigh 205-210 and there is a guy around my level in my Jiu Jitsu class that gives me fits and weighs 155. He is 31 (I am 49) and I am a lot stronger, but he is quick as hell and is a former wrestler. He is the only guy at my belt level that has ever made me tap. (Happens frequently against the high level guys LOL)

If you lined us up side by side you would swear I would kick his ass.....In a standup situation that would likely be true since i have epxperience on him there, but on the ground the guy is fucking dangerous and I have to be really methodical when I roll with him to avoid being caught.

Point is, appearance and measurables are not always the definitive gauge on who would win or get the better of who.

Like Ben I have no dog in the fight and am DEFINITELY not defending Zimmerman, but bigger does not always equal badder.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

His pics make him look like a fatty to me. And I don't recall reading where he chased the kid down multiple times. And he put up a fight against...a woman. Real tough guy there.

A cop too. Martin's GF who was on the phone with him said he had "lost" the guy a couple times. Zimmerman mentions it too on the 911 call. He made attempts to get away from the guy stalking him.

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

..and if you've read and comprehended anything I've said, you'd understand that I basically agree with all of this part. But it sure looks like that in Florida, if you stop running, throw the first punch, and are winning the fight, the dude with the gun can yell "self defense" after he kills you, and be within his legal rights. You're sounding like the people out there that are evidently missing this critical, critical point. It may not matter that Zimmerman chased him, scared him, made him feel threatened, or any of that.

Let's try putting it this way:

Do I strongly suspect that Zimmerman is the one who initiated the chain of events that led to Martin's death?
Absolutely.

Do I strongly suspect that Zimmerman is likely the primary "bad guy" in this story?
Absolutely.

But does that mean, according to Florida law, that Zimmerman should go to jail?
Unless I believed that Zimmerman chased down Martin and then physically attacked him, I just can't say that and be remotely intellectually honest about the matter.

You're talking about Stand Your Ground. I don't think that applies to this case at all. I know some people on the left have brought it up to score political points, but almost every lawyer has said it doesn't apply including those who wrote the bill. Chasing after someone when cops have told you not to is not standing your ground, it's instigating.

If SYG does apply in this, it's a pretty fucked up law (I actually think it's a good law). It would allow you to pick a fight with someone, get on the losing end and then pulll out your gun.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I keep seeing this and while the Gun is a definite advantage, 100 pound weight difference is not if you know how to fight, or if you get in the first blow with some force.

I weigh 205-210 and there is a guy around my level in my Jiu Jitsu class that gives me fits and weighs 155. He is 31 (I am 49) and I am a lot stronger, but he is quick as hell and is a former wrestler. He is the only guy at my belt level that has ever made me tap. (Happens frequently against the high level guys LOL)

If you lined us up side by side you would swear I would kick his ass.....In a standup situation that would likely be true since i have epxperience on him there, but on the ground the guy is fucking dangerous and I have to be really methodical when I roll with him to avoid being caught.

Point is, appearance and measurables are not always the definitive gauge on who would win or get the better of who.

Like Ben I have no dog in the fight and am DEFINITELY not defending Zimmerman, but bigger does not always equal badder.

If Martin is well trained in Jiu Jitsu, I take back my statement. But there is a reason why boxing, wrestling, and MMA have weight classes. It is a big advantage. I think that's especially true for unskilled fighters who typically end up just getting into a scrum.

It can happen, but the odds certainly aren't in the favor of it. When you keep throwing improbably events on top of one another, the story doesn't add up.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

...but almost every lawyer has said it doesn't apply including those who wrote the bill...

I'd be curious to see the lawyers you've seen write/say that. Most of the ones I've read/heard say just the opposite: that it's a law that leaves wide room for interpretation because of the way it is written. And see my comments earlier in the thread: I pretty much completely discount the opinions of the politicians who wrote and voted for the law. If their law ends up being used to get Zimmerman off, their political careers are done. Of course they're gonna say it didn't mean this. I've seen both conservative and liberal lawyers saying that the problem here is the law.

[Toddzilla]

When I first read about the story, I reacted with the typical overbearing Liberal outrage. Like Ben, I firlmy believe that Zimmerman instigated and put in motion the events that caused Martin to be killed.

However, given the wording of the law, if Martin even so much as defended himself from Zimmerman in any way, Zimmerman skates because he can claim he felt threatened. Even if that only means Zimmerman had a gun to Martin's head and Martin pushed him away.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

When I first read about the story, I reacted with the typical overbearing Liberal outrage. Like Ben, I firlmy believe that Zimmerman instigated and put in motion the events that caused Martin to be killed.

However, given the wording of the law, if Martin even so much as defended himself from Zimmerman in any way, Zimmerman skates because he can claim he felt threatened. Even if that only means Zimmerman had a gun to Martin's head and Martin pushed him away.

That is my fear as well and if that happens things could get ugly fast.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

However, given the wording of the law, if Martin even so much as defended himself from Zimmerman in any way, Zimmerman skates because he can claim he felt threatened. Even if that only means Zimmerman had a gun to Martin's head and Martin pushed him away.

I don't see how the law would allow that. If Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin, he was engaged in unlawful activity and would therefore not have a right to self defense. I don't think "Stand Your Ground" changes that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flounder

I don't see how the law would allow that. If Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin, he was engaged in unlawful activity and would therefore not have a right to self defense. I don't think "Stand Your Ground" changes that.

I guess we don't know that until we can see the language of the law. It may be vague enough to where a jury or judge could interpret it to where the law could allow it. The talent pool of the people that write these laws isn't very deep, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if this happens.

[flounder]

Section 776.041 of the Florida statutes states

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Under number 1, if Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun, that would be a forcible felony. Under number 2, even if Martin attacked first, Zimmerman would still have a duty to retreat, meaning that "Stand Your Ground" wouldn't apply.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I guess we don't know that until we can see the language of the law.

F.S. 776.013

I've been told that this is likely the key part"

(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.

That's why I am saying that it looks like that if Martin threw the first punch and Martin really was winning the fight, none of the other exclusions seem to apply here since the dispatcher can't give a lawful order not to follow. I don't *like* it, but I can't seem to get past it. If I were on a jury and believed that Martin was on top when he got shot, I'd have to acquit since there's probably no way to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin hit him first. (reasonable doubt and all that...)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flounder

Section 776.041 of the Florida statutes states



Under number 1, if Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun, that would be a forcible felony. Under number 2, even if Martin attacked first, Zimmerman would still have a duty to retreat, meaning that "Stand Your Ground" wouldn't apply.

Hmmm very interesting. This leaves a lot of questions until we are able to get more details.

And here's the definition of Forcible felony:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.