Florida Teen Shot

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, but when you kill someone else (with a gun, with your vehicle, whatever) don't you lose a little bit of that right to privacy?

No. The only reason that right would be lost is if the defendant waives it by saying, "I was high and could not form the requisite intent to commit murder." Or, "I had a stroke, which is why I plowed into the schoolyard."

Murder, etc., usually doesn't have an "absence of intoxication" element. It's up to the defendant to bring it up, in which case the privacy right is waived.

When a drunk person is involved in a fatal car wreck, I don't think the police leave it up to him to volunteer that he is drunk??? Of course, most drunk driving laws are pretty strict.

Are there not any similar laws about using/carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)? Honest question - I really have no idea.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When a drunk person is involved in a fatal car wreck, I don't think the police leave it up to him to volunteer that he is drunk??? Of course, most drunk driving laws are pretty strict.

Are there not any similar laws about using/carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)? Honest question - I really have no idea.

yes, nearly all states include implied consent to BAC testing when driving. Refuse and you give up your license.

I'm a bit surprised that this wouldn't be done for a guy that was cuffed and taken down to the station in a fatal shooting. Perhaps only with PC from a field test that he passed?

[devildog 0]

Yeah, why would a mind altering substance have any bearing on the case whatsoever

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>You assume that Z was an attacker.
>Wrong assumption, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, it is wrong. So is the assumption that "Z was not an attacker" - which is the assumption you made. Neither is provable.

Whole lot of assuming going on here.

IMO it's going to be very hard to get a jury with no preconceived notions on the case, and said jury is going to have a very hard time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>Whole lot of assuming going on here.

Exactly. Which is why I am glad it's going before a judge and potentially a jury - they will have access to information that all the Internet warriors do not.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground.

How do you know this?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Here's one:
You assume that Z was an attacker.

Yep. Because Z was tailing and following. If I'm walking around a neighborhood and somebody is following me around, I'm going to feel threatened. How about you? Nothing suggests that TM was doing ANYTHING. But we have a phone call from GM where he's telling the dispatcher that he's following TM and the dispatcher tells him not to do that.

What was TM's subjective and reasonable belief? We don't know - GM capped him. But Florida law allows a person who feels threatened to stand his ground. And the facts all indicate that no matter where TM went, GM followed. And was armed while he was doing it.

GM was the attacker.

Quote

Here's another:
You assume that whatever force TM was using was non-lethal. You don't know that.

Sure I do. Looks like GM lived and suffered from injuries that were not life threatening. I have had a dude pick a fight with me before. I stood my ground (well, sat my ground). His two friends were there to back him up. I told him I didn't want a fight. I told the bartender that if something happens this guy was being out of line. He pushed my shoulder, thus initiating physical contact (though I was already threatened and could have legitimately acted to neutralize the threat) and I neutralized him with one punch. I also neutralized one of his friends by grabbing and menacing him with my fist.

Now, if the dude pulled a gun and shot me, would he then claim self defense? Would I, the Bill Gates dude studying, be alleged to have been up to no good? There was a reason why I explained what was happening to a third party. To have all evidence point to myself acting in self defense with no doubt.

GM followed TM. GM went to the locus. GM said on a recorded telephone call that he was following TM and NOT that TM was following him.

You don't stand your ground by approaching all over a neighborhood.

Quote

You said TM stood his ground. Not so. By all accounts, he approached

Okay. Here's the deal: did TM already feel threatened? We don't know. But there is an inference that it's what happened. Again, the kid is dead.

Quote

No confrontation would have happened had TM continued on his innocent way and not approached Z.

No confrontation would have happened had GM continued on his innocent way and not approached TM. In matters of self-defense, a key question is, "Who started it?" Another matter is, "Who elevated it?"

GM started it. GM elevated it to deadly force. Fact.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground.

How do you know this?

From the recorded phone call where he was following TM. That's called an act of aggression that's easily perceived as a threat.

Try finding someone in a neighborhood and follow the person around. See what happens. For big fun, try it with a woman. See how she responds.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

GM started it. GM elevated it to deadly force. Fact.

Not fact.

Your law degree should be revoked.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Here's one:
You assume that Z was an attacker.

Yep. Because Z was tailing and following. If I'm walking around a neighborhood and somebody is following me around, I'm going to feel threatened. How about you? Nothing suggests that TM was doing ANYTHING. But we have a phone call from GM where he's telling the dispatcher that he's following TM and the dispatcher tells him not to do that.

What was TM's subjective and reasonable belief? We don't know - GM capped him. But Florida law allows a person who feels threatened to stand his ground. And the facts all indicate that no matter where TM went, GM followed. And was armed while he was doing it.

being armed (concealed) is irrelevant.

So we know there was an initial period of following. There is a claim, that cannot be disproven, that he stopped following and went back towards his car. And then there is the confrontation.

How long after following someone does the clock get reset? If I follow you today, you can't use that as justification to attack/stand your ground next Tuesday. Your phrasing, and many others, suggest that it wasn't enough for him to withdraw from the situation. What would be the requirement, then?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

for him to withdraw from the situation

Doesn't stand for ground mean you don't have to withdraw?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

for him to withdraw from the situation

Doesn't stand for ground mean you don't have to withdraw?

SYG refers to the defendant, not the [alleged] attacker. What was that about reading comprehension?

[billvon 2,991]

>Not fact.

Perhaps not, but extremely good evidence for. A 9/11 transcript with Zimmerman's own voice demonstrates that he started it even after the police told him not to. Zimmerman admitted that he shot the teen, thus providing pretty good evidence that he elevated it to deadly force.

Zimmerman's lawyers could claim that it was a cell phone thief on the 9/11 call claiming to be Zimmerman, thus potentially rendering the first argument moot. They could also claim that someone else shot Trayvon, thus negating the second. Both arguments would seem unlikely to succeed.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

SYG refers to the defendant, not the [alleged] attacker.

You were replying to Lawrocket. His contention in his post is that GZ is the attacker.

Quote

What was that about reading comprehension?

Indeed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

SYG refers to the defendant, not the [alleged] attacker.

You were replying to Lawrocket. His contention in his post is that GZ is the attacker.

no shit. Which makes SYG irrelevant.

[toolbox 0]

The police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow,they said they did not need him to follow.
Big difference.

[billvon 2,991]

>The police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow,they said they did not
>need him to follow.

Agreed.

[normiss 801]

A 911 dispatcher is not 'police', they have ZERO legal authority to give any sort of order nor would anyone be required to abide by anything they say.

Not to mention that when Zimmerman was told "We don't need you to do that", he responded "OK". Which would indicate he did in fact, follow the advice of the 911 dispatcher.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground.

How do you know this?

From the recorded phone call where he was following TM. That's called an act of aggression that's easily perceived as a threat.

Try finding someone in a neighborhood and follow the person around. See what happens. For big fun, try it with a woman. See how she responds.

I disagree. following someone is not an act of aggression. If anything it's non-aggression. GZ was a member of neighborhood watch. He was simply following someone he did not recognize as living in the neighborhood so he could point out where he went to the police. After the 911 dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow, I believe he stopped and was headed back to his truck.

You do not have the right to attack someone whom you believe is following you.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

GM was the attacker

Wow I read most your post. You normally seem to offer a fairly well thought idea, without making a factual statement unless you can back it up..

You have no proof what so ever to back this up. You seem to have lost the ability to understand proof. Proof. Following someone isn't proof that you started a fight.

What happen to logical Lawrocket??????

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 2,991]

>A 911 dispatcher is not 'police'

Yes, they are. They are the interface to the police that the public uses in emergencies. They are as much the police as a police spokeman is.

>Not to mention that when Zimmerman was told "We don't need you to do
>that", he responded "OK". Which would indicate he did in fact, follow the
>advice of the 911 dispatcher.

Are you claiming that he in fact did not follow Martin?

[mirage62 0]

No Bill he is claiming that when he said "ok" he stop. Which can't be Proved or dis-proved. So far

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 2,991]

>No Bill he is claiming that when he said "ok" he stop. Which can't be
>Proved or dis-proved. So far

?? I think his admission that he did pursue him pretty much proves that he did pursue him.

[mirage62 0]

The commit was about what happen AFTER the phone call, and you know it silly boy

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

An attacker cannot provoke a response and then increase to deadly force. Not in my mind.

This exact scenario is explicitly allowed under the FL SYG law in certain circumstances.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"