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

[derspiess]

I didn't think this thread could possibly be entertaining but somehow it happened

[Martinus]

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?

He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.

What evidence do you have that you went to law school?

Sorry I got confused - I meant to say Martin. 

[Razgovory]

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?

He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.

What evidence do you have that you went to law school?

I think he just mixed up the names this time.  I'd give him a pass on this one.

[Razgovory]

Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. 

I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.

I think he was.

[CountDeMoney]

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?

He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.

What evidence do you have that you went to law school?

Sorry I got confused - I meant to say Martin. 

Gotcha.  Just thought you were talking law again. 

[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

I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.

pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test

does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:

1. zimmerman had been black; or

2. zimmerman's  name had been sanchez?

No.  Of course not.  The police would have arrested Zimmerman if he was black.

Martin didn't have a gun, he wasn't the one who could use deadly force.  Where is this terrible "gash".

Here's a better question.  If Martin had been stalking Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot him, would Zimmerman have been arrested?

of course he would

[Razgovory]

Why?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Interesting.  I had no idea and I'm quite surprised.  It makes sense, I suppose, given how many more guns there are in the US it's far more likely that self-defence ends up in death.  So you want to make that happen as few times as possible.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Interesting.  I had no idea and I'm quite surprised.  It makes sense, I suppose, given how many more guns there are in the US it's far more likely that self-defence ends up in death.  So you want to make that happen as few times as possible.

yes;  contrary to popular global belief, we're all not Arizona circa 1881. 

[Sheilbh]

yes;  contrary to popular global belief, we're all not Arizona circa 1881. 

Don't spoil it

I'm just surprised that it's more restrictive in the US than in England.  But as I say that does make sense.

[derspiess]

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.

Maryland sucks.  Castle doctrine FTW.

[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

I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.

pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test

does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:

1. zimmerman had been black; or

2. zimmerman's  name had been sanchez?

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?

You seem to be perfectly happy to resolve all holes/inconsistencies in the story in the favour of the killer.

i'm not resolving anything

the police have discretion to charge someone with a crime if they believe that probable cause exists; they likewise have discretion to not charge someone if they feel the evidence is insufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; this is clearly a case within that zone of discretion based upon the evidence available to us

use of that discretion keeps us from being part of a police state

if the prosecutor thinks the cops blew it, he can still charge someone with a crime; it's atypical but can and does happen

additionally if the prosecutor is unsure, he can commence a grand jury investigation after which the grand jury, hearing the prosecutor's evidence will tell us whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has occured

the police reasonably used their discretion based upon the facts available to them and the prosecutor has reasonably used his discretion

so where the fuck is the story here?

and where have i accepted the veracity of zimmerman's account beyond my correct observation that based upon the physical corroborating evidence the cops could reasonably have used their discretion to not charge zimmerman

[Rasputin]

Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. 

I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.

I think he was.

i never argued the victim used deadly force

my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense

[Rasputin]

Why?

because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force

you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail

you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass

[Razgovory]

Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. 

I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.

I think he was.

i never argued the victim used deadly force

my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense

It is sufficient evidence?  Any cut on Zimmerman is only evidence that Zimmerman was cut.