Zimmerman acquited.

[AcmeSigns 97]

they will nail him to the wall in the civil case.

 I hate to tell you but this won't happen. Florida law grants immunity from civil liability if you take someone else's life in self-defense (whether you are defending yourself, a loved one or even a complete stranger).

 

And a couple of things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread...

1. From the reports I've read (the same one where the defense wanted to use the fact that he had drugs in his system and that his cousin had texted him asking when he [Trayvon] was going to teach him how to fight) Trayvon was attempting to buy a gun. Let's see...17 years old (probably under the legal age in Florida to legally purchase a firearm)...yeah, I'm sure that he was going to get ahold of a firearm and then trot on down and register it, don't you? Personally, I don't think this kid was as squeaky-clean innocent as everyone tried to paint him out to be. And what do you think a 17-year-old would need an illegal firearm for anyway?

 

2. Everyone moans on about how Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman wasn't, so George clearly had an unfair advantage. But how is someone supposed to know if the suspicious person is armed or not? It's not like it's printed on the back of their hoodie.

 

3. In every instance where there were witnesses they described the previous burglaries as being committed by 'young black men'. What was Trayvon again? Oh yeah...a young black man. Is thinking that a unknown, young black man, in an area where burglaries have been committed by young black men, is suspicious now not allowed? 

 

4. The prosecution (and at least one poster here) went on about how many times Zimmerman called 911. In case y'all don't know...that's exactly what Neighborhood Watch people are supposed to do! So now, doing what your supposed to do (in this case call 911 when you see someone suspicious), is now the wrong thing to do?

 

5. If, as many have said, Trayvon was 'scared' by the 'creepy-ass cracker' (his words, not mine) then why, in the four minutes time between talking to his friend Rachel Jeantel and the attack on Zimmerman, did he not simply head to his father's fiancee's house? It supposedly wasn't that far - I've heard the distance of 'a couple of football fields' mentioned. I'm old but even I can walk 200 yards in 4 minutes.

 

6. I don't recall any protests when O.J. was acquitted for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson & Ron Goldman. And he was clearly guilty. Where was the outcry then? Oh yeah, that's right, that was just a black man killing an unarmed white woman and man. I guess that's OK in this country. At least, it seemed, it was OK with the black community  then. I don't remember Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton condemning O.J.

 

Just bringing up some things I hadn't seen mentioned/talked about.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

  Edited July 15, 2013 by Meg  
just to put blank lines between the paragraphs

[flatron 83]

If I had been killed everytime I wore a hoodie in a cold night or shortcutted through private property, I would have died more than ten times. Stand-your-ground-laws and militant neighbours shooting every trespasser are clearly wild west things. This should be prohibited. And a jury shouldn't have the power to decide if someone's guilty or not. The US justice system is a fraud.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Whilst yes I agree the stand your ground law definitely needs serious review, what people need to remember is that Zimmerman was acting within the law at the time of the incident.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And a couple of things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread...

1. From the reports I've read (the same one where the defense wanted to use the fact that he had drugs in his system and that his cousin had texted him asking when he [Trayvon] was going to teach him how to fight) Trayvon was attempting to buy a gun. Let's see...17 years old (probably under the legal age in Florida to legally purchase a firearm)...yeah, I'm sure that he was going to get ahold of a firearm and then trot on down and register it, don't you? Personally, I don't think this kid was as squeaky-clean innocent as everyone tried to paint him out to be. And what do you think a 17-year-old would need an illegal firearm for anyway?

2. Everyone moans on about how Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman wasn't, so George clearly had an unfair advantage. But how is someone supposed to know if the suspicious person is armed or not? It's not like it's printed on the back of their hoodie.

3. In every instance where there were witnesses they described the previous burglaries as being committed by 'young black men'. What was Trayvon again? Oh yeah...a young black man. Is thinking that a unknown, young black man, in an area where burglaries have been committed by young black men, is suspicious now not allowed? 

4. The prosecution (and at least one poster here) went on about how many times Zimmerman called 911. In case y'all don't know...that's exactly what Neighborhood Watch people are supposed to do! So now, doing what your supposed to do (in this case call 911 when you see someone suspicious), is now the wrong thing to do?

5. If, as many have said, Trayvon was 'scared' by the 'creepy-ass cracker' (his words, not mine) then why, in the four minutes time between talking to his friend Rachel Jeantel and the attack on Zimmerman, did he not simply head to his father's fiancee's house? It supposedly wasn't that far - I've heard the distance of 'a couple of football fields' mentioned. I'm old but even I can walk 200 yards in 4 minutes.

6. I don't recall any protests when O.J. was acquitted for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson & Ron Goldman. And he was clearly guilty. Where was the outcry then? Oh yeah, that's right, that was just a black man killing an unarmed white woman and man. I guess that's OK in this country. At least, it seemed, it was OK with the black community  then. I don't remember Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton condemning O.J.

 

Just bringing up some things I hadn't seen mentioned/talked about.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

 

1. Having the intent to buy a gun at some point in the near or not so near future is not a crime. Nor was it Zimmerman's job to play police officer. Hell, Martin could have been the worst criminal in history and it still wouldn't matter one bit in this case as he was not doing anything wrong at the moment Zimmerman started stalking him. This argument is irrelevant. 

 

2. Which is why he shouldn't have been going after Martin to begin with. I mean, how stupid is it to go after someone who may or may not be armed? Why would you try to provoke a situation where you need to draw a gun? 

 

3. Its called racial profiling and is a rather racist thing to do. Even then, the law system is based on innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Though obviously in the US that is only the case when we are talking about promising athletes and white males. 

 

4. No one says that him calling 911 is wrong. What most here are saying is that it was wrong of him to ignore their warnings to not go following him. 

 

5. Wow, this is nice. You are blaming the victim for getting killed. The US is supposed to be a free country where walking the streets is not a crime. What Martin did or did not do is irrelevant here because whatever he did, he was not doing anything illegal. 

 

6. Completely irrelevant. 

  Edited July 15, 2013 by Meg  
just to put blank lines between the paragraphs

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Next phase of the persecution.

 

{Aside} What an apt name for the president of the NAACP.{/aside}

 

So now the feds step in, and they are now going to spend a lot of money they don't make on a civil rights case.  Being accused in the US puts you on some kind of proscription list.  Acquitted should be acquitted.

[rweather5 22]

If Zimmerman was black and Martin was white this case would have been completely different.

[Titanicbuff 1,262]

OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases rolled into 1- man We all know he did it- so lets hang him up by the neck. Also rweather5 is right- suppose Zimmerman was a black guy killing a white guy- he would be where he belongs. He also claimed that Treyvon had a gun. Where is this gun? All the cops found was Skittles and a Poweraide on Treyvon. I believe Zimmerman belongs in jail instead of where he can kill again. At the time he was on the phone with the police- they asked him NOT to pursue Treyvon- He did so anyway. They also state that the all female jury didn't know what the charge actually was. They need to redo this case- it was flawed from the get go.

[Meg 368]

If Zimmerman was black and Martin was white this case would have been completely different.

 

and if they were both black, we never would have heard about it.

[snick25 384]

All this just goes to show that we've got a long way to go before African Americans and other minorities truly get equality.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.  In those parts, I think that classifies him as a "person of colour".  Wonder if we should refurbish the underground railroad.  Some of our best people arrived here that way.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I don't really consider the fact he was Hispanic or black or whatever. A man on neighbourhood watch has the right to defend himself just as anyone else does.

 

If indeed Mr Martin was acting suss then naturally Zimmerman had every right to contact the authorities. I was biased against him by that report he was a graffiti-artist.

 

Tbh I have no idea what to think about this case as there seems to be a lot of confusing and contradicting information.

 

However I do believe one has the right to defend oneself, this should be considered a basic right of any intelligent creature

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

But the question is, having ignored orders to lay off, Zimmerman continued to harass(?) the victim, so who is the first assailant?

[AkemiAzula 280]

If Zimmerman truly believed Martin to be a threat to the community... 

 

I never consider a person's nationality for reasons of diplomacy, so putting that aside and the apparent fact that most crimes in the area were committed by men of his continent of origin, we are left with his acting suspiciously. A neighbourhood watch officer thinking a man to be suss... Well we all know how weak the police tend to be at doing anything about a problem. He may have felt it his duty to take the law into his hands.

 

I don't know. America seems a really messed up country to me. Started out with all those fine ideals... And now what a fine mess it is. But it's a worldwide problem, crime. I have never visited Florida. Closest I've been is Nashville so...

 

I guess we'll never know if he is guilty or not

[flatron 83]

How, can Hispanic be not white? I mean, spain and portugal are also in europe, aren't they? And why is there still so much trouble about "races"? I mean we're not dogs or cattle or horses...

[Jazzmaster 716]

Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.  In those parts, I think that classifies him as a "person of colour".  Wonder if we should refurbish the underground railroad.  Some of our best people arrived here that way.

 

I think it does in most places, if not all.

[hym 358]

If I had been killed everytime I wore a hoodie in a cold night or shortcutted through private property, I would have died more than ten times. Stand-your-ground-laws and militant neighbours shooting every trespasser are clearly wild west things. This should be prohibited. And a jury shouldn't have the power to decide if someone's guilty or not. The US justice system is a fraud.

 

Stand your ground laws are not designed to give Person A the ability to randomly kill Person B or without reasonable cause.  These laws are typically designed to cover a gaping hole in traditional self-defense laws.  Traditional self-defense laws usually require the potential victim to attempt a retreat.  Retreat may not be a viable option, and as such, it places the potential victim in a situation where the law is supposed to protect the innocent, but is functionally protecting the criminal.  Stand your ground laws are often justified on grounds that traditional self-defense laws may not be sufficient to provide the potential victim adequate protection.  There may be only a few seconds to make a decision that will save your life, and it is unreasonable to expect the potential victim to try to figure out how to escape.  A US Supreme Court justice summed up the issue very well by saying, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

 

As for trial by jury, the concept is often regarded as one of the basic tenets of a fair trial.  If guilt is determined solely by the government, then the government becomes "judge, jury, and executioner."  History and modern research has shown that this type of system lends itself to abuse by the state.  The easiest, and probably best, method to avoid this type of abuse is to remove the power of the state to determine guilt.  Despite its faults, trial by jury truly is better than the alternative where the state controls everything.

 

How, can Hispanic be not white? I mean, spain and portugal are also in europe, aren't they?

 

"Hispanic" has multiple functional definitions in the US.  Many organizations use it to refer to individuals with a historical link to Spain.  The US Census Bureau uses it to refer to individuals for certain geographic areas, without regard to race.  (Other federal government agencies adopt different standards.)  This is one of those gray areas.  I have a friend, originally from Mexico, who is the product of a mixed marriage.  She identifies as "Mexican" and "brown," despite having whiter skin than I do.  Another friend, also from Mexico, has darker skin than I do, but will use "Hispanic" as an identifier.  

 

They need to redo this case- it was flawed from the get go.

 

This is conjecture on my part as I'm not totally familiar with the case, but I'm not certain they can.  The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy.  With some exceptions, the state gets one and only one chance to convict you.  If it screws up, oh well.

[Jazzmaster 716]

 

 

 

They need to redo this case- it was flawed from the get go.

 

This is conjecture on my part as I'm not totally familiar with the case, but I'm not certain they can.  The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy.  With some exceptions, the state gets one and only one chance to convict you.  If it screws up, oh well.

 

 

That's correct, and it's exactly why people still refer to the OJ Simpson case every time something like this comes up.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

What I don't understand about the law is that it seems like it wouldn't take much to be able to use it to cover many killings with just a little preplanning.

 

If I was in Florida I could waltz into a crack house, act like pee wee herman, and then when they attack me or I otherwise feel significantly threatened (which would be very reasonable in that situation) I can shoot the place up and kill everyone there.

 

 

I think with Zimmerman whether or not it's self defense depends on what you consider "the event" to be.  If the event is the fight that they got into and you look only at that, then it's very reasonable to think that he was in serious danger and had the right to shoot him.  But if you rewind a few minutes then it's clear that "the event" was instigated when Zimmerman was following the kid around.

 

But Martin has the right to "stand his ground" when feeling threatened by someone following him, and so he confronted Zimmerman.  And during that confrontation Zimmerman was loosing, and so felt threatened, and then shot him.

 

Does that mean that when two people are mutually afraid of each other that they have the right to have a battle to the death, and that whoever is left standing is free to go because it was self defense?

 

 

The law confuses me.

[Meg 368]

 

Does that mean that when two people are mutually afraid of each other that they have the right to have a battle to the death, and that whoever is left standing is free to go because it was self defense?

 

 

 

That appears to be the case.  

 

and that's messed up.

[hym 358]

Does that mean that when two people are mutually afraid of each other that they have the right to have a battle to the death, and that whoever is left standing is free to go because it was self defense?

 

Not necessarily.  Stand your ground laws often are complemented by a law prohibiting preemptive strikes.  Perhaps a bit of clarification of the logic would be in order.

 

Let's say that Person A shows obvious intent to inflict serious bodily harm on Person B.  Under a traditional, "retreat if possible" self-defense law, the Person B absolutely must attempt retreat before he can fight back against Person A.  If B kills A without satisfying the state's definition of retreat, B is now guilty of murder (despite the fact that B was only acting in the interest of self-preservation).  In some states, the retreat requirement is so strict that it is nearly impossible for B satisfy the requirement, thereby turning B into a murder or an animal for slaughter.  People looked at that and said, "The law is protecting the criminals at the expense of the innocent.  That's messed up and we need to fix that."  Thus, the "no retreat" law was born.  (This is also known as "stand your ground.")  The basic premise is that the retreat requirement is removed.  Deadly force can be an option of first resort if B reasonably believes it is necessary.  (At the same time, it is worth noting that, even under a "stand your ground" law, retreat is still considered the preferred action.  It's just not a legal requirement anymore.)

 

Implementation of a "stand your ground" law leaves a rather obvious problem: what happens if B believes that A intends to cause B physical harm, but A has not currently done so?  This is where "preemptive strike" laws are frequently used to complement the "stand your ground" law.  For B to be allowed to use lethal force against A, A has to be presently engaged in hostilities against B.  If B engages A first, B commits murder, despite B's belief that A is plotting harm against B.

 

The exact particulars are subject to the details of the laws in question, but in general, they pretty much all work the same way.  Self-defense functions pretty much the same as it did before, with the exception that retreat is no longer legally mandatory before lethal force can be used.  This is usually coupled with a sentence clearly stating self-defense cannot be claimed if you are the first to engage in hostility.  More to the point of your scenario, it means that two individuals who are mutually afraid of each other can only claim self-defense if the other individual attacks first.

[Cpt Johnny 57]

.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

the BoR did exist in the 1800s, y'know. We did do away with public hangings, which might be of some use now if properly and expeditiously applied however.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Was Zimmerman really following Trayvon? I don't know as I wasn't there. Were you? If not, the argument doesn't hold water.

Zimmerman's contention was that he was looking to see if he could tell where the 'suspicious' person went but lost sight of him. He claims that he was headed back to his truck when he was attacked by Trayvon. The last time I looked, physical assault is a crime. That, by definition, would be something 'illegal'. I don't see how people can say that Trayvon 'wasn't doing anything' to warrant Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

George Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin for walking through his neighborhood at night - he shot him because he was being attacked by a younger, stronger man and he did not know when, or if, the beating would just suddenly end. In Zimmerman's initial questioning by the police he is said to have stated that Trayvon told him, 'tonight's the night you die' (or words to that effect).

 

Do I think that mistakes were made all around? Yes, I do.

George should have just stayed in his truck until the police arrived. If ever.

Taryvon could have quite easily explained that he was on his way to his father's fiancee's house. It doesn't appear that he did.

Zimmerman could have identified himself as 'Neighborhood Watch'. It doesn't appear that he did.

Trayvon could have continued on to his father's fiancee's house. There was no real reason to double back and lie in wait for Zimmerman.

Trayvon didn't need to jump Zimmerman and begin pummeling him (No. I don't know for certain that that is what really happened but that was what was presented in court and there was no one to dispute it).

 

And to respond, in no particular order, to some of the numerous postings here:

 

Some points made in my previous post were written to show 'character'. If you didn't get that, I'm sorry that I didn't go into enough detail.

 

No one's argument/talking point is 'irrelevant'. Even if you don't agree with something that was said/written, that does not discount it's worth.

 

Physical Assault is, indeed, an illegal move. So, as much as I hate to be the one to point it out, Trayvon Martin was in the process of committing a crime at the specific point that Zimmerman shot him.

 

'Following' is not 'stalking' unless it is proved as such. The Prosecution did not prove their case. That is the reason the jury found Zimmerman 'not guilty'.

 

If George is smart he'll keep a low profile for the rest of his life (if he's lucky enough to have one as there have already been death threats made against him).

 

edit: Earlier tonight I saw a full page 'wanted' poster-style ad by the New Black Panther Party offering a $10,000 reward for George Zimmerman. I'm sure that the cross-hairs over Zimmerman's face is completely innocent and means nothing at all (that's sarcasm in case no one caught it). I wonder what the odds are that the Justice Department will look into this as either a 'hate crime' or, at least, a blatant threat? I'm thinking slim-to-none but I'd like to be proven wrong.

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/07/13/zimmerman_NBPP_wanted_poster_AP.jpg

https://dcdirectactionnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/wanted_poster.jpg

 

It was never proved that Zimmerman 'profiled' Trayvon because of his race. He just happened to fit the description given to the police about the burglars. If I was a member of the Neighborhood Watch (and that was what I had been told the burglars looked like) I think that I too, at least until I determined what Trayvon was doing there, would have looked at him suspiciously as well. I would have done the same to a white man if that was what I was told the burglars were. It has only become about 'race' since the acquittal. Even Trayvon's own parents don't believe that it had anything to do with race. And yet, allot of people (Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson come to mind - but then, that's the only way those two think they can have any relevance) are intent on making this all about 'race'.

 

Too many people are buying into this 'so you can just shoot anyone and call it 'self-defense' and get away with murder' mindset. Read the law that applied in this instance...Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life / great bodily harm...and that meets the criteria of the law.

 

http://floridastandyourground.org/

(specifically 776.012 & 776.032)

 

The following two are opinion pieces, not news articles, but I found them both equally interesting:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/14/no-winners-in-zimmerman-verdict-only-tragedy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fopinion+%28Internal+-+Opinion+-+Mixed%29

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/11/white-hispanics-crackers-teenage-mammies-no-winners-in-martin-zimmerman-case/?intcmp=obinsite

[Duke87 1,070]

I do not understand why Person A gets to stalk Person B and then use deadly force when Person B objects.  Can someone explain that to me?

 

The case is more complicated than that because Person A was not stalking Person B with malicious intent. Person A suspected Person B was up to no good and was investigating. Now, Person A suspected incorrectly, and some degree of paranoia rather than rational concern seems to have driven that suspicion. But he had suspicion nonetheless.

 

 

Really what we have here is an example of someone who is not quite right in the head doing something rash while in his head genuinely believing that it is right and necessary. Race only factors into it to the degree that it may have influenced the man's paranoia.

And that is why he was acquitted: if you want to convict someone of murder, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they killed with malicious intent. Intent being the problem here. Zimmerman did not murder Martin in cold blood. Zimmerman is messed up in the head and seriously believed, as absurd as it seems to rational people, that Martin was a threat to him. Because of this, convicting him of murder was not possible. It might have been possible to convict him of a lesser charge had the prosecution sought it, but they did not. And the jury can only rule on charges that the prosecution presses.

 

I completely agree that the killing was unjustified and that Zimmerman does not deserve to just walk away from this. But the ruling of the trial is consistent with the law and with the procedures of the legal system and thus is perfectly legit. Hopefully he'll get his comeuppance from the civil suit(s).

[AkemiAzula 280]

All I know is that if someone attacks you you should have the right to kill them, just as you put down dangerous dogs. If a human acts like a savage animal then shoot it. 

 

And when you don't have a gun you have to be even more brutal to the beast in question, using a knife or somesuch implement if possible to slay them.

 

If this law didn't exist criminals could control the world because we'd have no legal method of defeating them in battle which would be highly weak. If a criminal tried to conquer your house/neighbourhood for his drug empire, wouldn'/t you at least attempt to kill him?

[Odainsaker 2,134]

 

How, can Hispanic be not white? I mean, spain and portugal are also in europe, aren't they? And why is there still so much trouble about "races"? I mean we're not dogs or cattle or horses...

I think some folks might see Hispanics as non-white because most of them have partial Native American or African American ancestry?

 

 

The U.S. government actually has a peculiar history when it comes to distinguishing between White and Hispanic.  At the end of the Mexican-American War, large portions of northern Mexico were annexed by the U.S., and under the 1848 peace terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Mexican populations of those regions were offered and granted U.S. citizenship with full voting rights.  This is the source of the slogan, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."  However, U.S. law at the time limited citizenship only to whites, and the U.S. Census only categorized White and Black.  As discrimination cases against formerly Mexican and now U.S. citizens trickled up the system, the courts ruled that since the U.S. government granted citizenship to those Mexican populations while simultaneously limiting citizenship to whites, then the U.S. government must legally considered all Mexicans as White.  Of course, the realities of language and mixed skin color on the ground was less clear cut than the courts absurdly found it, and changes in citizenship laws and census categories have since added offered more categories.

 

And when you don't have a gun you have to be even more brutal to the beast in question, using a knife or somesuch implement if possible to slay them.

 

So, when unarmed Martin was suddenly confronted alone in an admittedly dangerous neighborhood by an unknown person who had been following him and was threatening with a gun in the dark of night, did he have the right of self-defense against the immediate threat of being shot?

 

No one knows what really happened except the shooter Zimmerman, and I will admit that with such uncertainty, an acquittal was inevitable and perhaps even correct.  Still, we don't even know who actually physically attacked first nor who was actually attacking at the time of the shot, and it would seem that in these sorts of circumstances of mutually mistaken perceptions with deadly outcomes, it would typically be the surviving shooter who gets the protective immunity of the law.  Remember, always be sure to shoot to kill, so that there is never another side to counter your own self-defense story.

.

.

.

Profiling, paranoia, castle doctrines, and stand-your-ground laws seem to still offer recipes for disaster.  Consider Hattori Yoshihiro, the teenage exchange student who in Louisiana in 1992 was shot and killed for knocking on the door of a wrong house inhabited by paranoid owners with shotguns.  Apparently, he approached walking funny and spoke a funny ranguage, and so that imminent threat deserved to die.  Those needlessly panicking and overreacting homeowners, who really should have remained in their home and called 911 rather than grabbing their shotgun and foolishly heading out to confront in "Dirty Harry" style and with deadly force two lost kids getting back into their car to leave, were also, like Zimmerman, acquitted because they believed themselves to be reasonably threatened within their rights under stand-your-ground or castle doctrines.

[flatron 83]

Oh AMERICA, you never fail to amuse the rest of the world with your stupid laws, religious fanatism and nineteenth century values, even if the case is as tragic as this one...

[AcmeSigns 97]

I don't recall at any point in the coverage of the trial the mention nor the accusation of Zimmerman having threatened Martin with a gun. On what information are you basing this scenario?

 

I don't think that most people would consider a gated community a 'dangerous neighborhood'.

 

If Zimmerman had attacked Martin 1st, wouldn't there have been wounds/bruises on Martin's body? Did forensics reveal any bruising on Zimmerman's hands?

 

From what coverage I saw, the only person to have any sort of confrontational bruising was Zimmerman (notwithstanding the fatal shot to Trayvon).

 

As to the tragic Hattori Yoshihiro story you linked to:

There was only one shooter and one weapon involved and it was a revolver, not a shotgun. In reading the article it is revealed that in the ensuing civil trial that the shooter, Rodney Peairs, was found guilty and ordered to pay Hattori's parents $650,000. Rodney also stated, ' that he would never again own a gun'. The two instances (Martin & Yoshihiro) are completely different cases with the only connection being that in each instance a teenager died so I don't really see the comparison. In Hattori's case I don't believe for a second that the shooter was justified. His actions were completely irresponsible.

[LexusInfernus 908]

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

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

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

 

This the stand your ground law from Florida. 

 

What I don't understand about the law is that it seems like it wouldn't take much to be able to use it to cover many killings with just a little preplanning.

 

If I was in Florida I could waltz into a crack house, act like pee wee herman, and then when they attack me or I otherwise feel significantly threatened (which would be very reasonable in that situation) I can shoot the place up and kill everyone there.

No as a crack house is private property of someone else. You had no right to be there and as such you are not allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself. 

 

However, if you would do as you say in a public space, then yes, you could definitely do what you just described. This is essentially what happened with Zimmerman. He put himself in harms way, provoked the situation to such a degree that the other person felt threatened and reacted badly and he had to shoot him to defend himself. 

 

 

Not necessarily.  Stand your ground laws often are complemented by a law prohibiting preemptive strikes.  Perhaps a bit of clarification of the logic would be in order.

The Florida law does allow preemptive force. It clearly states you are allowed to use deadly force the moment you suspect someone is going to illegally enter a dwelling, residence or vehicle and that deadly force is allowed to prevent a felony or an attack against yourself or others from occurring. Furthermore, the law itself is also broad enough to mean that you can use deadly force to prevent crimes from happening from other peoples dwellings, residences or vehicles. In short, you can shoot and kill people who are attempting to break into your neighbors house. 

 

Funny that this law essentially gives vigilantes and neighborhood watches the licenses to hunt down and kill criminals as long as you shoot them from a spot where you had the legal right to be. 

 

 

Oh as for people arguing that Zimmerman was right to shoot Martin because he attacked Zimmerman first. Please do remember that the same self defense law also applies to Martin. He had every reason to suspect he was about to be a victim of a crime (you know, some guy is stalking you and its evening) and as such had every right to use force against Zimmerman. It was just bad luck for Martin that Zimmerman had the gun and Martin did not. Though you can be sure that had it been the other way around, and Martin managed to kill Zimmerman before he had a chance to shoot Martin, Martin would have been prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. Because you know, Black people are always the criminals, never the victims. 

[hym 358]

That doesn't say one has the right to a preemptive strike. It only states that you have the right to use deadly force if a crime is occurring, has occurred, or one has reasonable belief that either of the two cases is true.

It is also nothing new that the self-defense law permits you to employ deadly force to aid another individual. That is fairly common. It lowers the possibility of prosecution for aiding another individual in distress.

Remember, thinking that you are about to become a victim of a crime does not clear one for use of deadly force. That is a preemptive strike. Zimmerman following Martin does not mean Martin will become a victim, hence Martin has not met the requirements to claim self-defense. If Zimmerman struck first, Martin would be entitled to self-defense, but not the other way around.