Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Darryl » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:05 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:
Dauric wrote:......The public outrage is over a misconception that someone who's not in a cell isn't being investigated.....



I thought the public outrage was for the fact that the police weren't going to investigate this at all due to Zimmerman claiming self defence. Yes there are people that are claiming he should be locked up with any due process which is absurd, but the bigger worry is that the local force were happy with his story of self defence and weren't going to look into it any further.

There's also the public outrage over the fact that the police didn't seem to think anything was suspicious about Zimmerman suddenly skipping town.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
Darryl
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Sytri » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Sytri wrote:
Dauric wrote:......The public outrage is over a misconception that someone who's not in a cell isn't being investigated.....



I thought the public outrage was for the fact that the police weren't going to investigate this at all due to Zimmerman claiming self defence. Yes there are people that are claiming he should be locked up with any due process which is absurd, but the bigger worry is that the local force were happy with his story of self defence and weren't going to look into it any further.


Well, this is getting in to details of the case that I'm not familiar with to say with certainty, but it may have been that the police haven't been able to find enough evidence one way or another. Given that the precedent in the way Florida's courts are handling similar cases the DA and the police are likely to believe that taking the time, energy, and most importantly -budget- to pursue a case against Zimmerman would end up in an acquittal anyway, that the available evidence didn't meet a high enough bar.


Sorry, but again, this isn't that the police couldn't find any evidence so they weren't going to charge him. This was the police beliving his story straight away and therefore not even looking for evidence. IANA CSI or anything like that but I'd assume not cordening off a crime scene area as soon as possible leads to a vast majority of evidence being lost and the chances of charges being brought decreasing.

Darryl wrote:There's also the public outrage over the fact that the police didn't seem to think anything was suspicious about Zimmerman suddenly skipping town.


I didn't know he'd skipped town, although being a UK resident I doubt it'd filter over to here. But him leaving his town could be self preservation, especially if he now has a price on his head. Not excusable though as he should then go to the police and ask for their protection. Will probably be his argument though if charges are brought and he's not where he should be.
Apathy will kill us all. Or not. Whatever.
User avatar
Sytri
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:00 am UTC
Location: Reading, UK

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Dauric » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:27 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Sorry, but again, this isn't that the police couldn't find any evidence so they weren't going to charge him. This was the police beliving his story straight away and therefore not even looking for evidence. IANA CSI or anything like that but I'd assume not cordening off a crime scene area as soon as possible leads to a vast majority of evidence being lost and the chances of charges being brought decreasing.


I haven't seen any reports that actually verify this, just the press-releases expressing this interpretation of events from Tyvon's family and their supporters. The incident happened about a month ago, and I'm not sure what events have transpired between then and now.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.
User avatar
Dauric
 
Posts: 3199
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: If I knew this with any accuracy I wouldn't know if I was going to get a speeding ticket.

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Garm » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Sorry, but again, this isn't that the police couldn't find any evidence so they weren't going to charge him. This was the police beliving his story straight away and therefore not even looking for evidence. IANA CSI or anything like that but I'd assume not cordening off a crime scene area as soon as possible leads to a vast majority of evidence being lost and the chances of charges being brought decreasing.


This is my big problem with this event. They didn't bother to take his gun and don't seem to really have gone over the scene as though it were a crime.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Dauric wrote:He was expressly ordered by the 911 operator to withdraw precisely because
Clarification: He was never directed or asked to withdraw or not to follow. The operator merely stated that Zimmerman's following Martin was not needed.
"Are you following him"?
"Yes."
"Okay, we don't need you to do that, sir."

That was the second time. The beginning of the call had "Do not follow him, police are on the way."

That's.... pretty much a direct, express order.
I gave Zimmerman's call another listen and did not hear this. When does it occur?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.
User avatar
Princess Marzipan
Bananas are fish who attack divers inland
 
Posts: 7719
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:I didn't know he'd skipped town, although being a UK resident I doubt it'd filter over to here. But him leaving his town could be self preservation, especially if he now has a price on his head. Not excusable though as he should then go to the police and ask for their protection. Will probably be his argument though if charges are brought and he's not where he should be.


Go to the police and ask for protection? They don't do that, except in witness protection, which is Federal not State, and even then it isn't exactly ideal. Police are more 'janitors' than security guards.

It's more that the NBP and the Nation of Islam has more or less stated they want to murder him, and now he finally has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of hooded black people.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Qaanol » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

When you hear Mr. Zimmerman say things like “Trayvon threw the first punch”, it is your duty as an unbiased listener to remember that the foremost reason we have not heard Trayvon make an identical claim against Mr. Zimmerman is that Trayvon is dead.
Last edited by Qaanol on Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Small Government Liberal
User avatar
Qaanol
 
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Darryl » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Darryl wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Dauric wrote:He was expressly ordered by the 911 operator to withdraw precisely because
Clarification: He was never directed or asked to withdraw or not to follow. The operator merely stated that Zimmerman's following Martin was not needed.
"Are you following him"?
"Yes."
"Okay, we don't need you to do that, sir."

That was the second time. The beginning of the call had "Do not follow him, police are on the way."

That's.... pretty much a direct, express order.
I gave Zimmerman's call another listen and did not hear this. When does it occur?

IIRC, directly before he muttered the racial slur, then said "they always get away".
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
Darryl
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:31 pm UTC

I heard that "slur", it sounded more like gibberish to me. I hear more coherent things by playing music backwards. I couldn't tell what he was saying or if he was just breathing heavily.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby buddy431 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Garm wrote:
Sytri wrote:Sorry, but again, this isn't that the police couldn't find any evidence so they weren't going to charge him. This was the police beliving his story straight away and therefore not even looking for evidence. IANA CSI or anything like that but I'd assume not cordening off a crime scene area as soon as possible leads to a vast majority of evidence being lost and the chances of charges being brought decreasing.


This is my big problem with this event. They didn't bother to take his gun and don't seem to really have gone over the scene as though it were a crime.


Except they did take his gun. The officers put him in handcuffs and took his gun as evidence. You could perhaps argue that the police could have done more at the scene, but they did take the gun as evidence, and were in contact with a prosecutor (by phone, not in person), and decided they didn't have enough evidence to charge him at the time. I wasn't there, so I'm not in any position to judge, but this seems like it could be a reasonable course of action, especially given the strong protections in Florida's laws for shooting someone in self-defense.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.
User avatar
buddy431
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Garm » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:50 pm UTC

Oh, my bad. I read somewhere that they didn't take his gun. Confusing!
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Shivahn » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:18 pm UTC

Yeah, the problem with events that are pretty bad is that almost everyone will take it, telephone-game it to an even worse extreme, and then that drives divisiveness.
User avatar
Shivahn
 
Posts: 2193
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby sigsfried » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Sytri wrote:I didn't know he'd skipped town, although being a UK resident I doubt it'd filter over to here. But him leaving his town could be self preservation, especially if he now has a price on his head. Not excusable though as he should then go to the police and ask for their protection. Will probably be his argument though if charges are brought and he's not where he should be.


Go to the police and ask for protection? They don't do that, except in witness protection, which is Federal not State, and even then it isn't exactly ideal. Police are more 'janitors' than security guards.

It's more that the NBP and the Nation of Islam has more or less stated they want to murder him, and now he finally has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of hooded black people.


If there is a specific, credible threat to the life of someone surely it is the duty of the police to offer some level of protection?
sigsfried
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:32 am UTC

sigsfried wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Sytri wrote:I didn't know he'd skipped town, although being a UK resident I doubt it'd filter over to here. But him leaving his town could be self preservation, especially if he now has a price on his head. Not excusable though as he should then go to the police and ask for their protection. Will probably be his argument though if charges are brought and he's not where he should be.


Go to the police and ask for protection? They don't do that, except in witness protection, which is Federal not State, and even then it isn't exactly ideal. Police are more 'janitors' than security guards.

It's more that the NBP and the Nation of Islam has more or less stated they want to murder him, and now he finally has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of hooded black people.


If there is a specific, credible threat to the life of someone surely it is the duty of the police to offer some level of protection?


That's not really their job. Their job is to mainly catch criminals and maintain the "peace". Occasionally they might do some kind of protection, but that's mostly for things involving trials. Most famously, the 20th 9/11 hijacker, at a cost of $200m. At best, like I said, would be Federal Witness Protection, but that's mainly given as an extra for people testifying in court. Once you testified, there is little incentive to continue the heavy protection; you are merely relocated and given some career re-education or something. That is usually enough actually, so long as you keep quiet. A person like Zimmerman, whose face is now known virtually everywhere, can't be relocated.

Don't think that insufficient protection is restricted to the US, the EU is just as bad and everywhere else worse.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Shivahn » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:36 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sigsfried wrote:
Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:
Sytri wrote:I didn't know he'd skipped town, although being a UK resident I doubt it'd filter over to here. But him leaving his town could be self preservation, especially if he now has a price on his head. Not excusable though as he should then go to the police and ask for their protection. Will probably be his argument though if charges are brought and he's not where he should be.


Go to the police and ask for protection? They don't do that, except in witness protection, which is Federal not State, and even then it isn't exactly ideal. Police are more 'janitors' than security guards.

It's more that the NBP and the Nation of Islam has more or less stated they want to murder him, and now he finally has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of hooded black people.

If there is a specific, credible threat to the life of someone surely it is the duty of the police to offer some level of protection?


That's not really their job.


It's not just not really their job, it's (serious trigger warning for being horrific and rape) not their job at all, legally.
User avatar
Shivahn
 
Posts: 2193
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:59 am UTC

But they sure love showing up at schools and indoctrinating all the kids into thinking police officers are their first, last, and only line of defense against Strangers.

I was bothered by all of the 911 calls where the callers state that they're not going outside to see what's going on. I understand the individual need for safety and don't blame the callers. I blame this attitude that we can't help each other and we have to call the Police, as they secretly won't actually help, and stand a good chance of making things worse. If everyone who called 911 had run out to see what the fuck necessitated a GUNSHOT in their neighborhood, there would have been at worst witnesses to the killing gunshot, and at best no one would have died.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.
User avatar
Princess Marzipan
Bananas are fish who attack divers inland
 
Posts: 7719
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:24 am UTC

There have been enough cases of shootings where the bullet missed and hit someone else that I think I would be wary of doing anything more than peeking out of the window if I heard a gunshot.
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” - Mark Twain
User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Lucrece » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Part of that also has to do with legal liability. Once people start getting involved, so many things can go wrong and open civilians for a lawsuit, so they're told to stay out of it and let the bureaucratic body handle it.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:58 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:But they sure love showing up at schools and indoctrinating all the kids into thinking police officers are their first, last, and only line of defense against Strangers.

I was bothered by all of the 911 calls where the callers state that they're not going outside to see what's going on. I understand the individual need for safety and don't blame the callers. I blame this attitude that we can't help each other and we have to call the Police, as they secretly won't actually help, and stand a good chance of making things worse. If everyone who called 911 had run out to see what the fuck necessitated a GUNSHOT in their neighborhood, there would have been at worst witnesses to the killing gunshot, and at best no one would have died.

I'm actually surprised that so many people even called 911 for a single gunshot, rather than writing it off as some fireworks or a car backfiring. I for one am not very good at telling gunshots from non-gunshot-loud-noises, so I don't call the police when I hear a bang. (The last time I thought I heard a gunshot at 3am, some investigation showed that it was just some people loudly unloading stuff at a nearby Safeway. And a few weeks ago there were actually gunshots right next to the Safeway, and I didn't hear a thing. I've called 911 a couple of times for other suspicious-sounding things, but it usually ends up being a waste of everybody's time.)

Then again, many of the callers seemed close enough to hear the screaming and see what was going on. This probably made them more inclined to call the police and less inclined to go out themselves.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:09 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:It's not just not really their job, it's (serious trigger warning for being horrific and rape) not their job at all, legally.

I don't understand this decision. Defending the public at large involves helping individuals. A refusal or failure to do that constitutes a failure to defend the public at large. Unless the police failed to help those three victims because they were busy helping other people with more important things, they weren't doing their job to generally help the public. Or they were doing an egregiously sub-optimal job.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Shivahn wrote:It's not just not really their job, it's (serious trigger warning for being horrific and rape) not their job at all, legally.

I don't understand this decision. Defending the public at large involves helping individuals. A refusal or failure to do that constitutes a failure to defend the public at large. Unless the police failed to help those three victims because they were busy helping other people with more important things, they weren't doing their job to generally help the public. Or they were doing an egregiously sub-optimal job.


I think everyone agrees that the police did terribly badly in this case, and that that dispatcher should probably be sacked; however, since they didn't fail to meet any specific obligation of theirs, they couldn't be held liable for what happened. Holding police departments liable for crimes they fail to prevent would set an awful precedent. Generally, the only people liable for the effects of crimes are the perpetrators of those crimes.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

Well I get why holding the police to preventing specific crimes is a problem, but they failed their obligations in general by not only failing to prevent specific crimes, but failing to prevent crimes in general to the best of their ability.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Newt » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:But they sure love showing up at schools and indoctrinating all the kids into thinking police officers are their first, last, and only line of defense against Strangers.

I was bothered by all of the 911 calls where the callers state that they're not going outside to see what's going on. I understand the individual need for safety and don't blame the callers. I blame this attitude that we can't help each other and we have to call the Police, as they secretly won't actually help, and stand a good chance of making things worse. If everyone who called 911 had run out to see what the fuck necessitated a GUNSHOT in their neighborhood, there would have been at worst witnesses to the killing gunshot, and at best no one would have died.


It seems like the 'worst situation' is that the shooter feels compelled to shoot the witnesses. You've just identified where you live, so it's not like they can't find you, even if they immediately vacate the scene.
Newt
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:33 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

buddy431 wrote:Except they did take his gun. The officers put him in handcuffs and took his gun as evidence.

This seems to indicate that the police did do their due diligence and, in conjunction with a prosecutor, decided that there was not a reason to pursue legal action due to lack of evidence.
Article wrote:True, according to police and the State Attorney's Office in Seminole-Brevard. Police talked to a prosecutor by phone that night, but she did not go to the scene. Based on the evidence they gathered that night, police believed they did not have enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman on a manslaughter charge because of his account of what happened and claim of self-defense.

If this is true, I can believe the police did their job if they had Zimmerman handcuffed, possibly in a squad car, gun confiscated, when a prosecutor told them over the phone "I've lost too many of these cases, might as well let him walk now."

Essentially, the cops could have decided it was a tragedy, but there was nothing they could do due to lack of witnesses.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Gellert1984 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

Dudes old man is a judge it'd be interesting to see the judge's phone records from that night.
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri
User avatar
Gellert1984
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Arrian » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:15 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Interesting note on the SYG laws. They're written by Think Tank (for lack of a better phrase). I'm fundamentally against this method of legislating. Our legislators should know what's in the law, know how the law works and be helping the people who voted for them, not some faceless group backed by a fuckton of corporate money.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11366/alec-and-nra-behind-law-may-protect-trayvon-martins-killer

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


"Stand your ground" is an English Common Law doctrine that pre-exists our Constitution, and has been accepted by the US Supreme Court (in pretty much the exact same form as Florida's law):

Volokh Conspiracy wrote:...
Finally, in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), Justice Holmes writing for a unanimous Court that included Louis Brandeis (the greatest Progressive jurist), explained:

Rationally the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the others in order to determine whether the defendant went farther than he was justified in doing; not a categorical proof of guilt. The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. [cite to Beard.] Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him Rowe v. United States, 164 U. S. 546. The law of Texas very strongly adopts these views as is shown by many cases, of which it is enough to cite two. Cooper v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 28, 38, 89 S. W. 1068. Baltrip v. State, 30 Tex. App. 545, 549, 17 S. W. 1106.

It is true that in the case of Beard he was upon his own land (not in his house,) and in that of Rowe he was in the room of a hotel, but those facts, although mentioned by the Court, would not have bettered the defence by the old common law and were not appreciably more favorable than that the defendant here was at a place where he was called to be, in the discharge of his duty. [Defendant Brown was an employee at a federal navy yard, where Hermis attacked him with a knife.]


This is from a really good post on Florida's self defense law and how it applies to Treyvon Martin's circumstances. "Stand your ground" doesn't apply:

Eventually, a grand jury will issue a report based on its investigation. In the meantime, there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin, caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

I am not making any judgment about which narrative is more plausible. The grand jury will do that. For now, it should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious.


[emphasis mine]
Zimmerman's story is that Martin jumped him and knocked him down after he was walking away. The duty to retreat doesn't apply when you don't have the opportunity to retreat, so stand your ground wouldn't apply if what Zimmerman said was true. If what everybody else thinks happened, Zimmerman was the aggressor, in which case, self defense doesn't apply at all.

Using this incident to argue against "stand your ground" laws is disingenuous.
Arrian
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Lucrece » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:07 pm UTC

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.


(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[35]
American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including, but not limited to, any infringement of another's rights.[36] Nonetheless many citizens' arrests are popular news stories.[37]
Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both private citizens and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[38] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[39] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States

For reference on why it's obnoxious to see how the kid's death is being pounced on by gun control advocates and Democrats who need material for their campaign against Republicans. It's all theater more concerned with gain than actual concern for what happened with the kid.

Zimmerman is widely exposed to criminal negligence charges by escalating the situation when he was suggested to cease pursuit. Disregarding dispatcher advise and precipitating an attack on himself by trying to stalk a suspect he did not witness committing a felony invalidates any right to a citizen's arrest and puts a major dampener on a self-defense claim.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Lucrece » Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:49 am UTC

Double-posting for a disgusting development in the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJELtlc7_Xk

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/ ... merman-wit
Surveillance Tapes Show Zimmerman Without Bloody Nose or Gash to Head[/b] | Crooks And Liars


This is absurd. The guy in the video is clearly neither bruised nor bleeding as he and police claim was found.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.
User avatar
Lucrece
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby lutzj » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:08 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Double-posting for a disgusting development in the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJELtlc7_Xk

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/ ... merman-wit
Surveillance Tapes Show Zimmerman Without Bloody Nose or Gash to Head[/b] | Crooks And Liars


This is absurd. The guy in the video is clearly neither bruised nor bleeding as he and police claim was found.


This changes everything. If Zimmerman/his lawyer/the police really are all caught in a lie here there needs to be some serious outside scrutiny of the investigation.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby buddy431 » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:45 am UTC

You can see it on CNN, with some commentary. The officers are obviously looking at something on the back of his head and jacket. The video's really too poor of quality to see what.

Anyways, I think this type of blow-by-blow publicity isn't good for anyone. It certainly makes any eventual trial much uglier, and leads people to draw conclusions before they really should.
Last edited by buddy431 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:02 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.
User avatar
buddy431
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Garm » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:52 am UTC

Agree with you on the point of how the blow-by-blow coverage is stupid. A point of order, however... Broken noses generally don't bleed down one's back. And in the one still shot that I saw, dude is wearing a light colored shirt. Having broken someone's nose before, they tend to bleed a lot.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:26 am UTC

I've gotten the occasional bloody nose, but don't recall ever getting it on my shirt, or having visible bruising. Swelling, sure, but not bruising. And I'm not sure what a 20x20px shot of the back of his head is supposed to prove.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was exaggerating or flat-out fabricating his injuries, but this video provides no convincing evidence one way or the other. I think we're best off not going all conspiracy theory on this.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:26 pm UTC

To be fair, a bloody nose and an outright broken one != the same thing. Broken noses tend to bleed a lot more than simply cut or bloody ones.
Nordic Einar
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:32 pm UTC

Wait, is that video even of Zimmerman?
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Falling » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, is that video even of Zimmerman?


That brings up another point. That picture that we've all seen of Zimmerman is several years old. We can see he's much fitter now; So not only was it feasible for Zimmerman to physical beat Trayvon, but it is also much more likely that we would be able to catch up to him if Trayvon did run.
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:To be fair, a bloody nose and an outright broken one != the same thing. Broken noses tend to bleed a lot more than simply cut or bloody ones.

It's not always obvious whether a nose is broken or merely bloody. One of my bloody noses appeared to be broken, and I was told as much by a trained first-responder who happened to be in the room. It wasn't until I went to ER and had a doctor or two poke around at it that became obvious that it was just minor cartilage damage rather than a fracture. I spilled a few drops of blood on the floor, but none on my clothing.

The point is, the fact that Zimmerman claimed to have a broken nose and was then photographed without blood on his shirt is by itself not convincing evidence that he was lying.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

Falling wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, is that video even of Zimmerman?


That brings up another point. That picture that we've all seen of Zimmerman is several years old. We can see he's much fitter now; So not only was it feasible for Zimmerman to physical beat Trayvon, but it is also much more likely that we would be able to catch up to him if Trayvon did run.


Except at his arrest, he was 250 lbs and 5'9, or basically a fatass. BMI of 36.9; class II obesity.

Which is why I suspect that Treyvon managed to run away, then Zimmerman got back in his SUV to chase him down, then got out and the deadly altercation occurred. Which is why Zimmerman's story was 'i got out of my SUV and Treyvon attacked me'. No kidding you walking tub of lard; running away was no longer an option for Treyvon, and at that Treyvon may very well have been justified in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law in shooting you.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Falling » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:49 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Except at his arrest, he was 250 lbs and 5'9, or basically a fatass. Class II obesity.


Nope. That number also came from that 6-year-old police report. Apparently he's more like 170 now.
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:54 pm UTC

Falling wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Except at his arrest, he was 250 lbs and 5'9, or basically a fatass. Class II obesity.


Nope. That number also came from that 6-year-old police report. Apparently he's more like 170 now.


What am I looking for in the first link? Doesn't give his weight. The second link does though, kind of.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6932
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Falling » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What am I looking for in the first link? Doesn't give his weight. The second link does though, kind of.


Exactly. It was just to illustrate that his weight was not noted after the shooting incident and that number comes from his arrest in 2005.
Falling
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests