Zimmerman juror calls for change in self-defence laws

reply to post by Auricom


Not really, some people see the flaw in justifying manslaughter without repercussion by using law that are ambiguous.

Edit:

It's nice of the article to reiterate that the criminal Trayvon was black.

lol its nice to know i can reason, unlike the GZ supporters who have selecting reading ability and bias.

reply to post by luciddream


You can go ahead and make that change if you want but without omniscience the end result would be the same.

In this case there were witnesses and he didnt get away with it.

When all you have to go on is the word of one man that word is for all intents and purposes gospel even if it's a lie.

from my point of view trayvon was not committing a crime, it would be one thing if trayvon saw zimmerman walking and followed him and tried to mug him and then zimmerman killed him in self defense but that's not the case. zimmerman called the cops on an innocent person, he profiled him and he was wrong. he went above and beyond his neighborhood watch duties and we do not know how the fight really went down, i can't believe zimmermans side of the story because it is full of holes. long story short trayvon would still be alive if zimmerman had not wrongfully profiled trayvon and followed neighborhood watch protocol which was not to follow and not to be armed while doing neighborhood watch duties.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere



you don;t see any flaws in that? that he can get away with murder if there is no witness?

Its like telling someone, make sure you kill whoever you get into an argument with that leads to law suit... this way,,, dead can't talk and you can walk away like Zimmerman did?

So if i kill someone i can make up whatever? all they need is some bruise marks right?

reply to post by luciddream


Sure its flawed. Tell me how to fix it? Cameras on 24/7 every 5 feet? Mandatory buddy system?

Just start passing more mindless laws without thinking anything through?

Given that we arent all-knowing and all-seeing we do the best we can. No, it's not good enough. So what do you propose?

Maybe we just assume everyones lying and punish them regardless? Let public outcry determine the result?

The law worked as intended....no need to change it.

The prosecution didn't do it's job.....had they tried for manslaughter at the beginning....and had enough evidence to back their case...things may have worked out differently.
Don't blame the system for the shortcomings of the prosecutor.

criminal with a bag of skittles..

you white folk scare me to death.

The self defense laws are fine. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

I thought Zimmerman following Martin would have made this a case of Manslaughter. But then, during the trial, I found out that it was perfectly legal for Zimmerman to do so.

What could change would be the laws that allow people to follow others. Right now it's legal. Perhaps something in the stalking laws could change.

In the end, it comes down to whoever threw the first punch is the one who broke the law.

No need to change 'self defense' laws. Change stalking laws. Tighten them up.

The main point here is this, does one have the right to self defense?

From what I gathered in the story, what she described wasn't even in the evidence. They couldn't prove he stood his ground.

Instead what was brought out and couldnt be disproved was he was under attack, which means he didn't have the option of retreating, he was taking blows, and so when he found his footing, instead of risking being jumped again and possibly dying from a blow to the nose or head, or being brain damaged, he shot. That was what I got out of the court case.

Then many believing something else went down, but in reality, believing isn't the same thing as "what can be proved".

I'll give an example, of people not behaving like pansies, not cowing down and retreating, but speaking up and intervening. A case where I was from, a 5 2 woman being beaten by her huge ex boyfriend who came to repo the washing machine. She lost teeth or they were damaged from this attack. A brave elderly woman opens the door and yells, do you need help?

The woman says, phone 9/11.

She proceeds to dial the number, its by the door. But he rips it from the wall and breaks her jaw with it and then picks her up and throws her off the balcony, and she breaks a leg.

Now if she had a gun, would her questioning, daring to insert herself into the scene and ask if help was needed, make her stupid and thus contributing to his death if she had pulled the trigger, like Zimmerman did.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Change stalking laws. Tighten them up.

Yeah.. that would actually work too... i never knew stalking was legal until this case came along... i should stalk! (joking)

Doesn't provoking the person to engage you voids the law? some maybe see Zimmerman following him as provoking.

Just what we need - the government making laws that defines whether or not we are following someone. Nothing like something that open to interpretation being made into a law.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

No need to change 'self defense' laws. Change stalking laws. Tighten them up.

It'd make no difference. First how are you going to write them? Steps behind, duration behind, being asked not to, if so asked by who, final destination... way too many variables.

And, if they were absolutely air tight and perfect, all you have is Zimmermans word still.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by luciddream

 

I'm kind of surprised that juror B-37 wanted to find him guilty. She sounded so sympathetic to him, I assumed she was one of the three who found him not guilty right away.

In any case, I agree with her. The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin should have negated his self-defense charge. You don't go looking for a fight and then, when you start losing, kill the guy and get away with it... Well, I guess you do in Florida.

The self-defense law is adequate in itself. A SYG law is unnecessary and gives control and protection to vigilantes.

OTOH, changing the law to create an obligation to retreat could have the consequences of making it more difficult to defend one's self and give more protection to rapists and other criminals.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Or criminals to hide as "law abiders" in society. If you know you can get away with ending someone's life.... that's gotta feel like something great. Its like finding Krptonite!

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Or criminals to hide as "law abiders" in society. If you know you can get away with ending someone's life.... that's gotta feel like something great. Its like finding Krptonite!

You keep bringing this up. I'm sure you have researched it and can present a dozen cases where, without any doubt whatsoever, this happened?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


No! just the side who don't have the ability to understand that it is not against the law to leave your car and because someone is following you, it does not give you the right to use phisical force. I wonder, now that the trial is over and it makes no difference what the jury sees, if they were aware of how great a person sweet Trayvon was? like the number of pieces of jewelry he had in his back pack, along with the screwdriver. Or was he planning on using that to open his "lean" Ice tea? lol Oh and did they ever hear why he was staying with his dad? You know because he was kicked out of school and his house by his mother for beating up his bus driver and possession of drugs? But why should we think sweet Travon did anything wrong it must have been all GZ, yea, the guy who had been in charge of keeping an eye on the community after being robbed 13 times, and even had a home invasion the month before, where a mom home alone, hiding with her infant, scared to death, had two up standing citizens, just like Travon relieve her of her tv, computer, phone, and some other items, after kicking her door in! We should defiantly believe Travon and his wonderful well spoken literate character witness over Mr, Zimmerman who had many many people who are of the BEST character, come forward on Zimmerman's behalf! But most of all we should ignore all of the evidence that was undeniable and fit Zimmerman"s story. Martin wanted to teach this "whitie" "cracker" a lesson, and instead of going in the house with the 4.5 minutes he had to get there, he decided to double back to confront GZ. Not to talk but to punch him in the face and beat his head in the cement. I'll bet he wished he went home after feeling the hot lead bullet go threw his chest, heart, and lung!! But serves him right! too late! should a, would a, could a, but didn't. What a waste!

You know I would have bet a hundred bucks that you would be one of the people who would be against GZ Its funny that I could tell what side of this case someone would be on, based on how they sided about the POS's Birth Certificate. But at least this time we had a jury that could decide to settle it. But the premise is the same.

Those who have common sense are able to comprehend and get it. Those who are either "the true RACIST" or lack the ability to use common sense, will never get it!!! Which one are you?

You must be brain dead if you think Zimmerman did one single thing wrong in regard to this!!

Originally posted by Unity_99
The main point here is this, does one have the right to self defense?

From what I gathered in the story, what she described wasn't even in the evidence. They couldn't prove he stood his ground.

Instead what was brought out and couldnt be disproved was he was under attack, which means he didn't have the option of retreating, he was taking blows, and so when he found his footing, instead of risking being jumped again and possibly dying from a blow to the nose or head, or being brain damaged, he shot. That was what I got out of the court case.

Then many believing something else went down, but in reality, believing isn't the same thing as "what can be proved".

I'll give an example, of people not behaving like pansies, not cowing down and retreating, but speaking up and intervening. A case where I was from, a 5 2 woman being beaten by her huge ex boyfriend who came to repo the washing machine. She lost teeth or they were damaged from this attack. A brave elderly woman opens the door and yells, do you need help?

The woman says, phone 9/11.

She proceeds to dial the number, its by the door. But he rips it from the wall and breaks her jaw with it and then picks her up and throws her off the balcony, and she breaks a leg.

Now if she had a gun, would her questioning, daring to insert herself into the scene and ask if help was needed, make her stupid and thus contributing to his death if she had pulled the trigger, like Zimmerman did.

the difference in your analogy is that the lady saw an actual crime taking place when she called the cops and was unfortunately seriously injured, in that case i would have agreed if she had a gun and shot the man dead before being attacked. in zimmermans case he wrongly profiled trayvon who was not committing a crime.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Change stalking laws. Tighten them up.

Yeah.. that would actually work too... i never knew stalking was legal until this case came along... i should stalk!

(joking)

I'm not sure the stalking law needs tightening....and I don't think this case has anything to do with stalking.

In Florida:

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) HARASS means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) COURSE OF CONDUCT means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) CREDIBLE THREAT means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

www.aardvarc.org...

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I'm not sure the stalking law needs tightening....and I don't think this case has anything to do with stalking.

It was a self defense case. Pure and simple. Not a stalking case. Both Zimmerman and Martin made bad decisions that night. The person who threw the first punch broke the law. And we'll never know fully what happened that night.

(Interesting side note .. so far all the jurors who have spoken out say that it was Zimmerman screaming for help)

HOWEVER .. after watching the trial, I was thinking that the stalking laws could use tightening up. I was thinking that I wouldn't want someone following me with the intent of watching me and carrying a gun doing so. It's legal. And I understand that neighborhood watches do that and they are necessary. But there are a lot of STUPID people out there who do stupid things ... and if someone didn't have any business following me and watching me then I'd want them not to be able to do so. It would be hard to prove intent ... but anyways .... that thought went through my mind this week.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Or criminals to hide as "law abiders" in society. If you know you can get away with ending someone's life.... that's gotta feel like something great. Its like finding Krptonite!

It does not work that way. You see a scenario where there will be a rash of criminals inciting people so that they get attacked and then get away with self defense? I don't see it and I doubt that you will find evidence of it.

"Self defense" has been used as a defense in criminal trials and has quite often failed when the evidence did not support the self defense claim.

Contrary to leftist propaganda, SYG laws are not carte blanche to shoot anyone whenever you feel like it.