Trayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?

[Sheilbh]

under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense

Weird.  There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.

What troubles me is that it sounds like Zimmerman chased the kid down.  There's a difference between not retreating and actively pursuing.  Would the law still favor Zimmerman if he had pursued the kid?

The 911 guy asks whether he's pursuing him.  Zimmerman says he is and is told 'we don't need you to do this'.  The guy who should be protected by stand your ground is surely Martin, who's walking along, on the phone to his girlfriend.  Then some guy starts staring at him and following him with a gun.

I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging.  Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.

There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.

because my whole point was the media has whipped up a non story into the latest national case and you seem swept up in the hysteria

A seventeen year old kid was shot and the guy who killed him was getting off with it.  That should be a national story.

[Rasputin]

following the kid at a distance while waiting for the police to arrive does not mean zimmerman was the aggressor

I guess this is the crux of the matter for me.  If he *was* following the kid at a distance and the kid turned around & charged at him, I guess he's in the clear.  But if he was closing in on the kid and the kid legitimately felt threatened, it's a different story-- to me, at least.

I would agree

[Sheilbh]

I guess this is the crux of the matter for me.  If he *was* following the kid at a distance and the kid turned around & charged at him, I guess he's in the clear.  But if he was closing in on the kid and the kid legitimately felt threatened, it's a different story-- to me, at least.

Wouldn't you feel legitimately threatened if you were being followed by a guy.  According to Martin's girlfriend he told her he was running away (Zimmerman's call to 911 says the same), then Martin thought he'd got away but shortly after Zimmerman had back tracked and caught up with him.  Given that I think it's entirely legitimate for a seventeen year old kid to feel fear - I mean imagine if it was a girl of the same age.

[PDH]

Wait, maybe the black guy attacked the fake cop because he felt threatened.  The black guy would have been in the clear if he had killed the fake cop.

[Rasputin]

and i'm sure the media will fuck it up based on my last name and call me a german american or some stupid shit like that

Don't worry, I would appear on MSNBC on your behalf.

I can see it now,

msnbc :"neo nazi german american lawyer shoots sexually confused  pollack visiting america, hear the exclusive interview with friend of right wing nut job"

cdm: "funny, i thought he was a kike?"

[Rasputin]

the standard is not and has never been that one feels threatened

it has to be a legitimate fear that you are in imminent danger of losing your life

absent the evidence of the wound on the back of zimmermans head and the bloody nose i am reasonably confident that zimmerman wouyldve been charge with second degree murder

[PDH]

Well, some guy running at me waving a gun would count as a legitimate fear for my life.  Trayvon was right to fight back.

[Rasputin]

my opinion is that if zimmerman chased and shot the kid he has committed a crime; if the evidence suggests that zimmerman followed the kid and he then turned on the follower and physically assaulted zimmerman, zimmerman did not commit a crime

[PDH]

My opinion doesn't count because I am old and I don't care.  Now get off my lawn.

[CountDeMoney]

under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense

Weird.  There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.

On the contrary;  many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.

That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged.  The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible.  It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.

Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story.  And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back.  You go to jail.

I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging.  Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.

There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.

Very poor investigation. 

I don't know about Florida, but in many jurisdictions, there's no such thing as a "warning shot".  That's an illegal discharge of a firearm within x amount of distance of residences.  "Warning shots" = too much TV.

You shoot, you shoot to kill.

[Rasputin]

following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances

physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted

[PDH]

All of you kids, off my lawn!

[Sheilbh]

absent the evidence of the wound on the back of zimmermans head and the bloody nose i am reasonably confident that zimmerman wouyldve been charge with second degree murder

Doesn't that give a killer far too much benefit of the doubt though?

Here's another recent cases of stand your ground that's problematic, I think.  This one suggests that it's a bit wider than a legitimate fear of imminent danger:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

my opinion is that if zimmerman chased and shot the kid he has committed a crime; if the evidence suggests that zimmerman followed the kid and he then turned on the follower and physically assaulted zimmerman, zimmerman did not commit a crime

But surely the kid has legitimate fears when he's being followed and physically assaulting Zimmerman to get away is a reasonable response to escape?  Again according to his girlfriend he was cornered and was asking 'what are you following me for?'

[CountDeMoney]

following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances

physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted

It is if he is chasing the kid with a gun.  He is not a sworn law enforcement officer or an agent of an institution or organization empowered by law to do so, and is not empowered by anyone--not Florida, not the Constitution, not God--to approach an individual with a deadly weapon.

His actions aggravated the situation, and in effect, fall under the definition of assault.  Martin was the victim of assault by an armed assailant, who was subsequently murdered by said assailant.

[Rasputin]

under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense

Weird.  There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.

On the contrary;  many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.

That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged.  The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible.  It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.

Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story.  And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back.  You go to jail.

I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging.  Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.

There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.

Very poor investigation. 

I don't know about Florida, but in many jurisdictions, there's no such thing as a "warning shot".  That's an illegal discharge of a firearm within x amount of distance of residences.  "Warning shots" = too much TV.

You shoot, you shoot to kill.

in florida a warning shot is a crime as well and is considered illegally "brandishing a firearm." the thoery (i assume) is that if someone has the presence of mind to fire a warning shot, then they are not actually in fear of imminently losing their life, they're just scared generally

sheilbh's reference to the warning shot is the first i've heard of it