[steveksux]

Given the circumstances, don't blame lay people for jumping to conclusions, on the surface it can look pretty bad.

My impression is that FL "stand your ground" law was written to bend over backwards to protect the self defense shooter. Essentially there is a presumption that the shoot is legal and there has to be evidence to prove otherwise before charges can be filed. Sort of the opposite of many places, where there has to be evidence of self defense to avoid arrest. This case may be "unintended consequences" of their desire to provide maximum protection from overzealous justice system?

Not a lawyer, not a cop, so I'm sure I bungled the explanation.

1) Am I in the ballpark?
2) If so, can you explain it better?
3) If not, can you explain it correctly?
4) Or are Sanford cops really are a bunch of crackers? (just kidding, I'm expecting there is a logical explanation).

Does jeopardy come into play here? Something like they don't want to risk getting charges thrown out with/without predjudice (forget which one doesn't allow refiling charges later) and letting the guy walk permanently?

Have you ever seen a Chief step aside temporarily in a case like this? Seems unheard of to me, maybe just never noticed before... But unless the people being investigated are personally related/friends of the chief... He probably does serve at the pleasure of some public official feeling some serious heat over this, so maybe its a good way to get out of the line of fire...

Obviously without access to the facts (which may never be known), figuring out exactly who's really at fault may well be impossible. With no video, only good (surviving) witness to the encounter is the shooter, unless he accidentally says something that hangs him, all you can tell is there was a fight. Not who started it, who escalated it. At least the known facts could support a whole range of theories.

I think if he was the aggressor, he might lose the self defense angle, and he did likely start the encounter. If he backed off, teen followed and attacked, I think it could be credible self-defense. If he was the instigator, but the teen got the better of him and he shot at that point, probably can't claim self defense. Even assuming I'm right, proving which scenario occurred will be difficult.

Thanks...

People calling for his head are probably the common case of judging with hindsight, the kid was unarmed. Not judging based on what was known at the time, the actual legal issues.

Randy

[SpoiledBySig]

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

[MeefZah]

I'm interested to see how it plays out.

Methinks there be (much) more to the story.

[jwhite75]

Originally Posted by MeefZah

I'm interested to see how it plays out.

Methinks there be (much) more to the story.

THIS x1,000

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by MeefZah

I'm interested to see how it plays out.

Methinks there be (much) more to the story.

From the pictures of Trayvon he looks like a thug. From the reports I have heard from leo and news says he stole the "Skittles" and he was a "troubled youth" From what I heard on news and leo has been self defense by Zimmerman and I tend to believe that from the physical evidence. I am sure they will do a voice analysis of the screams and if it is Zimmerman along wiht nay blood on Trayvon it will show "self-defense". The pics of the boy at 12 is not the same as the pics at 17. He was not an innocent kid.

Zimmerman did what he had to do. Then when I see the kids going through Walgreens I think store owners should be able to shoot looters.

http://www.local10.com/news/Police-T...z/-/index.html

[Dragoon44]

My scenario stands, and evidence evolves. Nothing else needs to be determined other than whether or not Zimmerman was lawfully in the situation he was.

What leads you to believe that Zimmerman's actions might be unlawful? ( not talking about the shooting itself.)

Zimmerman lives in that community which is private property.

While I have heard him referred to as self appointed I am not sure that is true. I read in at least one report that the Police Chief acknowledged that he was Captain of the neighborhood watch there.

If he was in fact authorized neighborhood watch captain, there is nothing unlawful about him checking out Martin who does not live in that community.

[FiremanMike]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

What leads you to believe that Zimmerman's actions might be unlawful? ( not talking about the shooting itself.)

Zimmerman lives in that community which is private property.

While I have heard him referred to as self appointed I am not sure that is true. I read in at least one report that the Police Chief acknowledged that he was Captain of the neighborhood watch there.

If he was in fact authorized neighborhood watch captain, there is nothing unlawful about him checking out Martin who does not live in that community.

I actually have no opinion one way or the other, as I haven't really delved too deeply into the circumstances leading up to the altercation. The only thing I keep seeing is the ad nauseam posting of the altercation and all of its nuances, which certainly make the fight itself seem as if it justifies deadly force from Zimmerman to Martin. This then only leaves whether or not Zimmerman was lawful in being there in the first place.

I won't lie, when the story first broke, my initial impressions were that it was a bit squirelly and over zealous and potentially unlawful for Zimmerman to have followed and or initiated contact. I don't believe that I've ever really heard of neighborhood watch people "patrolling" their neighborhoods in this manner, and as I recall when the story first broke there was some hub-bub about him being a whacker who had failed some PD applicant backgrounds, painted a picture of someone who intentially put himself there in an effort to "play cop". I haven't heard much mumbling of that lately, so perhaps it was typical media bull****, who knows.

Either way, as I look at this case with hindsight being 20/20, I find the shooting itself to be justified if and only if Zimmerman was lawfully following Martin. I agree with the accounts of the fight in that Zimmerman was probably trying to retreat and felt a danger to his life and was justified in using deadly force. If it is determined through all evidence that he was lawful in his "patrol" and "pursuit" of Martin, then it's case closed and the race baiters can go suck it. If it is determined that Zimmerman is unlawful in his "patrol" and "pursuit", than IMHO he is responsible for Martins death in the same way as I described in my scenario a few posts back.

[WDN]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

From the pictures of Trayvon he looks like a thug. From the reports I have heard from leo and news says he stole the "Skittles" and he was a "troubled youth" From what I heard on news and leo has been self defense by Zimmerman and I tend to believe that from the physical evidence. I am sure they will do a voice analysis of the screams and if it is Zimmerman along wiht nay blood on Trayvon it will show "self-defense". The pics of the boy at 12 is not the same as the pics at 17. He was not an innocent kid.

Zimmerman did what he had to do. Then when I see the kids going through Walgreens I think store owners should be able to shoot looters.

http://www.local10.com/news/Police-T...z/-/index.html

What does a thug look like. I've searched the net but have found no pictures that makes him look like anything other than a punk kid. He was a tall stick. He was 6'-3" but only 150 pounds. OMG, he stole skittles. Zimmerman knew nothing of this kids life and did not report that he was in a commission of a crime when he pursued him. Im not going to say Zimmerman wasn't justified, he may have been, but Zimmerman has a checkered past himself. Resisting arrest. Domestic violence. Lets just wait and see what the grand jury says.

[DocCasualty]

Originally Posted by WDN

OMG, he stole skittles.

Is that true or just another internet generated smear?

I'm not sure how much any of this stuff really matters to the case, but I'm guessing if a case can really be made that Martin was there on suspension for a drug-related incident and was coming back after shoplifting and truly had struck a bus driver and whatever else is floating out there in the ether, if it gets to the level of a jury, this will be taken into account by the jurors.

I'm not trying to spread anything bad about this kid as I have no idea. I'm sure there's nothing I typed here that everybody hasn't already read. If the pot-residue baggie is true, odds are he'll have THC on his tox screen. I've never associated that as something particularly disposing one to violence but again, I'm sure it will be spun.

[WDN]

FiremanMike has made some good points. I'm glad to see some people not making up their mind with the bits and pieces being released. Forensics and investigation should be able to sort this out. Maybe Trayvon was legally standing his ground? How was he supposed to know who was following him. No neighborhood watch person is gonna have authority over me. No matter what the outcome is legally, I think Zimmerman is gonna have a civil problems. If you carry, then you have to realize that any situation that your in, can escalate to deadly force. With that said, some lawyer is gonna tell his family to sue for wrongful death. He pursued a person that was not in a commission of a crime, while carrying a deadly weapon, knowing it could escalate to deadly force.

[maddog3241]

Originally Posted by WDN

but Zimmerman has a checkered past himself. Resisting arrest. Domestic violence. Lets just wait and see what the grand jury says.

No dog in this fight, but was curious about the above statement about the domestic violence. Wouldn't a DV conviction make it illegal for him to own a gun?

Just curious, I am just a new part timer....

[RussP]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

From the reports I have heard from leo and news says he stole the "Skittles"

Could you please post a link to the report that he stole the "Skittles".

[SpoiledBySig]

Meant to add the self defense statute before F.S.S. 776.013, which is F.S.S. 776.012-

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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

[seanmac45]

I'm probably going to be in the minority on the LE forum on this one;

I think that the shooter is the absolute aggressor in this case.

He had no right to be following anyone, and the whole incident stemmed from his actions.

Might be overly simplistic, but that is my opinion from what I have seen at this point, and yes, I am ignoring the blatant attempts at racially blowing it out of proportion. My litmus test is take the exact same fact pattern and make both participants white.

It stinks to high heavens both ways.

[expatman]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

...........He had no right to be following anyone, ..........

In reality he did have the "right" to follow someone just as you or I have a "right" to follow anyone of our choosing. At least until it reaches into the realm of stalking. It is not against the law to "follow" someone, at least not initially.

I am not an LEO and have no idea about who is right or wrong in this case. I just felt that that one point should be addressed.

[seanmac45]

Originally Posted by expatman

In reality he did have the "right" to follow someone just as you or I have a "right" to follow anyone of our choosing. At least until it reaches into the realm of stalking. It is not against the law to "follow" someone, at least not initially.

I am not an LEO and have no idea about who is right or wrong in this case. I just felt that that one point should be addressed.

In NY state following someone in public is an offense.

Florida law might be different.

[expatman]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

In NY state following someone in public is an offense.

Florida law might be different.

Thank you. That is very interesting.

Not sure what Fl. law states in that regard.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by expatman

In reality he did have the "right" to follow someone just as you or I have a "right" to follow anyone of our choosing. At least until it reaches into the realm of stalking. It is not against the law to "follow" someone, at least not initially.

I am not an LEO and have no idea about who is right or wrong in this case. I just felt that that one point should be addressed.

I also have absolutely have no knowledge of what happened here.

But as noted above, it's NOT "stalking" when it's the first time someone follows another in a public area (the streets and common areas of the gated community) without anything more to it.

And in this particular case, Zimmerman had a quasi-reasonable reason to do what he was doing. He was (1) the block watch guy and (2) he was block watching within his gated community. So it's justifiable if he told the police "Yes, I stared hard at him and followed him while calling 9-1-1 because I don't know who he is and wanted to know where he was going."

The devil is in the details.

[SpoiledBySig]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

I'm probably going to be in the minority on the LE forum on this one;

I think that the shooter is the absolute aggressor in this case.

He had no right to be following anyone, and the whole incident stemmed from his actions.

Might be overly simplistic, but that is my opinion from what I have seen at this point, and yes, I am ignoring the blatant attempts at racially blowing it out of proportion. My litmus test is take the exact same fact pattern and make both participants white.

It stinks to high heavens both ways.

This one's really hard to tell. You may be right, or you may be wrong. And yes, the incident does, "stink to high heavens both ways".

I only have read the initial preliminary police report on this-

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...l%20Report.pdf

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

I'm probably going to be in the minority on the LE forum on this one;

I think that the shooter is the absolute aggressor in this case.

He had no right to be following anyone, and the whole incident stemmed from his actions.

Might be overly simplistic, but that is my opinion from what I have seen at this point, and yes, I am ignoring the blatant attempts at racially blowing it out of proportion. My litmus test is take the exact same fact pattern and make both participants white.

It stinks to high heavens both ways.

I lean the same way. From what Zimmerman said on the phone, it wouldn't even raise to the level of an investigatory stop for police. What crime was there reasonable suspicion he was breaking? If I received this call assigned from dispatch I would have to approach it as more of a consensual contact.

I also don't think it's unusual for Martin to begin running towards his home when he suspects an adult male, non-police, to be following him.


This isn't brought up a lot in these conversations - but what led to Zimmermans fear or death or great bodily harm. If I shot everyone who fights with me as the police, I would be in the hundreds of officer involved shootings.

[Mr T]

That is correct. Get it down to the brass tac's. If "Captain" Kangaroo would have observed and reported and got out. Everyone would not be happy and alive. Whether or not Cops show up NMP. if they continue to fail the community to respond then it time to go to the city powers and pull some ears and get the system working. YOu can rationalize anything except common sense. Now if I come upon a scene in which he is attacking a person, then it's gloves off. Act to stop the attack. I cant stand Jessy Jackson

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

I'm probably going to be in the minority on the LE forum on this one;

I think that the shooter is the absolute aggressor in this case.

He had no right to be following anyone, and the whole incident stemmed from his actions.

Might be overly simplistic, but that is my opinion from what I have seen at this point, and yes, I am ignoring the blatant attempts at racially blowing it out of proportion. My litmus test is take the exact same fact pattern and make both participants white.

It stinks to high heavens both ways.

I am with you. It does not look good. I want to see the physical evidence and to a certain extent witness statements.

Right now it sounds like Zimmerman grabbed Martin. Fight starts. Zimmerman gets ass handed to him. Zimmerman shoots Martin.

Is Zimmerman at responsible for putting the habeus grabus on Martin when he had no legal right?

Is Martin responsible because he took it from "hey let go of me" to "I'm going to beat your ass?"

[dpadams6]

Id be interested in knowing trayvon martins criminal history. Hmmm?? Have not heard any mention of that, YET.

[rahrah12]

Originally Posted by dpadams6

Id be interested in knowing trayvon martins criminal history. Hmmm?? Have not heard any mention of that, YET.

Everything that I have read said that he had no criminal record.

[Cav]

Originally Posted by rahrah12

Everything that I have read said that he had no criminal record.

What I read said his history shows no serious felonys, but that minor felonys and misd crimes will not be listed.