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

[PDH]

What about if he follows you, you make a rapid series of left and right turns, he loses you and has to call for backup and a chopper, you go on the run and start a series of high profile bank heists that...

Oh wait, wrong movie.

[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.

Maryland sucks.  Castle doctrine FTW.

I hope you like prison food.  And penis.

[Razgovory]

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

Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain.  You come up on me and I push you away.  You shoot me.  I die.  Is that the way the law works?

[CountDeMoney]

Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain.  You come up on me and I push you away.  You shoot me.  I die.  Is that the way the law works?

Yup.  Especially if you're carrying an iced tea and Skittles.   It's the "Taste The Rainbow" doctrine.

[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

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

correct; and that's exactly why it's within that zone of discretion to not charge

if the cops believe that there is exonerating evidence based upon which a jury could find reasonable doubt they are well within their discretion to not arrest and charge someone with a crime.

[CountDeMoney]

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

Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.

[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

Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain.  You come up on me and I push you away.  You shoot me.  I die.  Is that the way the law works?

ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time

feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence

[Jacob]

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

But it was Zimmerman who physically assaulted Martin.

[Capetan Mihali]

Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain.  You come up on me and I push you away.  You shoot me.  I die.  Is that the way the law works?

Yup.  Especially if you're carrying an iced tea and Skittles.   It's the "Taste The Rainbow" doctrine.

[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

But it was Zimmerman who physically assaulted Martin.

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

[Razgovory]

ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time

feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence

What fact have I changed?  The alleged assault is not verified nor is it's nature.  It could be nothing more thing pushing a stalker away.  Stalker falls and cuts his head.  Shoot the person who pushed them.  That scenario consistent with known facts.

[Rasputin]

ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time

feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence

What fact have I changed?  The alleged assault is not verified nor is it's nature.  It could be nothing more thing pushing a stalker away.  Stalker falls and cuts his head.  Shoot the person who pushed them.  That scenario consistent with known facts.

dont forget about the part where zimmerman punches himself in the nose and cleans all the blood  off his hands before the cops arrive and the part where the cops see a dead black child so they agree to look the other way on behalf of the wannabe rent a cop who constantly harasses them with his nuisance  complaints

after all this is the south and thats just how we roll

be careful down here unless you speak cracker cause its dangerous to be black or jewish or latino in the deep south when barney fife is on the job

[Razgovory]

I will ask again, what fact did I change?  Do you have an answer?

[Jacob]

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.

[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.

I hope you like prison food.  And penis.

No, thanks.  I live in Ohio.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first