George Zimmerman describes the incident.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**PhantomViper**

Ouze wrote:Indeed, Stand Your Ground might best have been employed by TM. Instead of (allegedly) attacking GZ with his fists, he should have shot him to death instead - legally that was the best option.

He should have shot Zimmerman to death, if he did he would still be alive. A life that he would spend in prison for killing an innocent person in the middle of the street for no reason, but alive none the less.

**Ouze**

PhantomViper wrote:[ A life that he would spend in prison for killing an innocent person in the middle of the street for no reason, but alive none the less.

He would have felt he was in imminent danger of grievious bodily harm, right? I mean, he was, as it turned out.

**PhantomViper**

Ouze wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:[ A life that he would spend in prison for killing an innocent person in the middle of the street for no reason, but alive none the less.

He would have felt he was in imminent danger of grievious bodily harm, right? I mean, he was, as it turned out.

You are conveniently forgetting the whole "bashing of Zimmerman's head against the pavement" part that happened prior to the shooting part. But don't let things like actual facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory. Please continue to tell us how Zimmerman is a bastard for having defended himself...

**Ouze**

PhantomViper wrote:[You are conveniently forgetting the whole "bashing of Zimmerman's head against the pavement" part that happened prior to the shooting part. But don't let things like actual facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory.

I'm not forgetting it, it's simply not relevant. Under 776.012 he simply needed to have felt that he was in danger.

PhantomViper wrote:Please continue to tell us how Zimmerman is a bastard for having defended himself...

Is this one of those arguments where you argue against the things you wish I had said instead of the things I actually said? If so, let me know up front, because I have way better things to do then engage in arguments against strawmen. I could be teaching myself the ukelele, for example.

I think both parties, under Florida's poorly-written SYG law; had the right to use deadly force. They both felt in danger from each other. I don't have a problem with castle doctrines but I think this one went a bridge too far.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:Indeed, Stand Your Ground might best have been employed by TM. Instead of (allegedly) attacking GZ with his fists, he should have shot him to death instead - legally that was the best option.

Whats so awesome is how incredibly wrong that is.

Why do you people not get this? Just because a person is following you does not give you the right to attack them. It does not meet the definition of self defense. But in attacking someone else you set yourself up to be, well blasterized.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:[ A life that he would spend in prison for killing an innocent person in the middle of the street for no reason, but alive none the less.

He would have felt he was in imminent danger of grievious bodily harm, right? I mean, he was, as it turned out.

NO THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS SWEET BABY PASTA DIETY!

It has to be reasonable. it has to be under the statute of reasons you can use it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:[You are conveniently forgetting the whole "bashing of Zimmerman's head against the pavement" part that happened prior to the shooting part. But don't let things like actual facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory.

I'm not forgetting it, it's simply not relevant. Under 776.012 he simply needed to have felt that he was in danger.

PhantomViper wrote:Please continue to tell us how Zimmerman is a bastard for having defended himself...

Is this one of those arguments where you argue against the things you wish I had said instead of the things I actually said? If so, let me know up front, because I have way better things to do then engage in arguments against strawmen. I could be teaching myself the ukelele, for example.

I think both parties, under Florida's poorly-written SYG law; had the right to use deadly force. They both felt in danger from each other. I don't have a problem with castle doctrines but I think this one went a bridge too far.

The law is just fine. The law is not the issue.
You're working on bad assumptions because you've not actually educated yourself on what legally defensible self defense means.

Need I remind you of the excellent case in Houston no less, where someone was just convicted of murder.

**Albatross**

Is anyone else concerned about how needlessly macho some of the names of these laws are? I mean, seriously, 'Stand Your Ground'? Was 'Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?' already taken or something?

What's wrong with something sensible and practical like, oh, I dunno... 'The Right to Active Self-Defence', or 'Reasonable Pre-empitive Action'?

**Jihadin**

Also it seems some didn't hear the part of the attacker going for the weapon when it was exposed as mention by Z hence the comment "I rather not die by my own weapon" earlier post

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:Is anyone else concerned about how needlessly macho some of the names of these laws are? I mean, seriously, 'Stand Your Ground'? Was 'Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?' already taken or something?

What's wrong with something sensible and practical like, oh, I dunno... 'The Right to Active Self-Defence', or 'Reasonable Pre-empitive Action'?

In this case its understandable. Its meant to correct previous rulings and the potential that it could occur. Certain states (NEW YORK) have turned the requirement to retreat into a Benny Hillesque farce. Floridians don't play that.

**Jihadin**

Can't say "Deadly Force" it might go into profiling

**PhantomViper**

Jihadin wrote:Also it seems some didn't hear the part of the attacker going for the weapon when it was exposed as mention by Z hence the comment "I rather not die by my own weapon" earlier post

That could be stuff that Zimmerman made up. The bruises and injuries on his head, that where also witnessed by the police and fire department when they arrived on the scene however, are kind of hard to be made up.

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:Is anyone else concerned about how needlessly macho some of the names of these laws are? I mean, seriously, 'Stand Your Ground'? Was 'Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?' already taken or something?

What's wrong with something sensible and practical like, oh, I dunno... 'The Right to Active Self-Defence', or 'Reasonable Pre-empitive Action'?

Its not as catchy. Saying "I support Stand you Ground laws!" sticks in the mind more than "I support the right to active self-defense!"

**Grakmar**

Ouze wrote:
JohnnoM wrote:whos george zimmerman,and whats this all about?

I hope you can see from the 2 different responses that the facts of the night are still very much in question. The only things that are indisputable are that George Zimmerman was the captain of a neighborhood watch, lived in an area that had several recent burglaries, decided Trayvon Martin looked suspicious (for what reason is in dispute), called 9/11 who told him they didn't need him to confront him, there was a confrontation of some type with a physical tussle, and he wound up shooting him point blank.

George Zimmerman had injuries that show some sort of cut on the back of his head and an alleged broken nose. He claims that Trayvon attacked him, and was bashing his head into the sidewalk, and he had no choice but to respond with deadly force. People who do not believe this sequence of events point out that Zimmerman was much heavier, was armed, and had been arrested previously (but the charges dropped) for assaulting someone.

The other significant controversy - the biggest one, probably - was the perceived lack of an actual investigation by the Sanford PD, who did not test him for drugs or alcohol; did not arrest him, and so on. The Sanford PD has had several other recent cases where they did little to no investigation of wrongdoing.

That's the most non-biased way I think it can be summed up.

That's fairly biased towards Zimmerman.

1) Zimmerman is NOT the captain of a neighborhood watch. He's a vigilante and not part of any organized group.

2) You left out the part where Zimmerman chases Martin through the streets.

**Frazzled**

He was actually.

Also chasing is a lie. Following maybe. Fattie was to fat to be chasing anyone.

Following is not illegal. I know having been on the other end of it.

**d-usa**

Now we are just back to the same point where every other Zimmerman thread ended up.

**AustonT**

Considering virtually if not every report on the incident has said:

28-year-old neighborhood watch captain

It's not really much of a debatable point.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:Now we are just back to the same point where every other Zimmerman thread ended up.

Declaring war on Imperial Germany? Down with the Kaiser!

**SlaveToDorkness**

AustonT wrote:Considering virtually if not every report on the incident has said:
28-year-old neighborhood watch captain

It's not really much of a debatable point.

Wait... are you new here?

**sebster**

At the end of the day I think there's two big lessons for everyone to learn out of all of this;

1) If you're not a policeman don't try to be one, because you'll probably feth it up.
2) Don't be black, because that will make me people suspect you of a crime when you're just walking around the street.

**Jihadin**

That could be stuff that Zimmerman made up. The bruises and injuries on his head, that where also witnessed by the police and fire department when they arrived on the scene however, are kind of hard to be made up.

Hmmm it might be made up it might not be. If you are wearing/carrying a weapon and someone tries to acquire it from you you more then likely put a bullet in them. I will most diffently will put a round in someone for trying to acquire my weapon. Just one round because if I put multiple rounds into them then there will most diffently be problem

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:
That could be stuff that Zimmerman made up. The bruises and injuries on his head, that where also witnessed by the police and fire department when they arrived on the scene however, are kind of hard to be made up.

Hmmm it might be made up it might not be. If you are wearing/carrying a weapon and someone tries to acquire it from you you more then likely put a bullet in them. I will most diffently will put a round in someone for trying to acquire my weapon. Just one round because if I put multiple rounds into them then there will most diffently be problem

I subscribe to the belief that panic looks better than calm efficiency to a jury. That's why on the range I look for nice tight x rings, and in a perfect shoot I'd try my best to start at the low left hip and work up to the right shoulder. Because panic made me do it.

**Jihadin**

Zimmerman put how many rounds into Martin? One? I see Z getting acquitted but losing to wrongful death. As for the racial taint to it now....

**SlaveToDorkness**

There IS no racial taint. That was manufactured by the media.

**Frazzled**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:There IS no racial taint. That was manufactured by the media.

exactly.