New Photo of George Zimmerman released

[Heffay]

Getting out of your car and following someone may turn out to be a poor decision, but its a perfectly legal action.

And that is all that should matter.

But in today's world of politically-motivated prosecutions, it isn't.

Since when have people not been legally responsible for the consequences of their poor decisions???

[jshuberg]

People have never been held criminally responsible for poor decisions unless they were a crime. Not in the US anyway when the system is working properly.

Perhaps you'd prefer the legal system in S Korea, Iran, or Cuba where actions can be determined to be illegal after the fact, by an all knowing and beloved leader. Personally I prefer a system of laws, where you cannot be convicted and imprisoned for simply making poor choices.

[Heffay]

People have never been held criminally responsible for poor decisions unless it was a crime. Not in the US anyway when the system is working properly.

Perhaps you'd prefer the legal system in S Korea, Iran, or Cuba where actions can be determined to be illegal after the fact, by an all knowing and beloved leader. Personally I prefer a system of laws, where you cannot be convicted and imprisoned for simply making poor choices.

Well, being a participant in a fight makes you responsible for the consequences of that fight. Zimmerman decided to get involved willingly at first, and shot his way out of it when he was getting his ass kicked.

This is a GREAT example of why the Florida stand your ground law is not something we want. You can argue self defense as a mitigating circumstance, but he picked a fight and got his ass kicked as a result. So he is partially responsible for the consequences.

[cobb]

Well, being a participant in a fight makes you responsible for the consequences of that fight. Zimmerman decided to get involved willingly at first, and shot his way out of it when he was getting his ass kicked.

Really, he got willing involved? How so, being in a neighborhood watch group and observing a suspicious activity in his neighborhood?

[Thunder71]

Did he pick a fight? Did he participate? Or did he get blind sided and sucker punched?

Tapatalk - Helping people post from bathrooms since 2009.

[Jeff Bergquist]

People have never been held criminally responsible for poor decisions unless it was a crime. Not in the US anyway when the system is working properly.

Perhaps you'd prefer the legal system in S Korea, Iran, or Cuba where actions can be determined to be illegal after the fact, by an all knowing and beloved leader. Personally I prefer a system of laws, where you cannot be convicted and imprisoned for simply making poor choices.

Well, being a participant in a fight makes you responsible for the consequences of that fight. Zimmerman decided to get involved willingly at first, and shot his way out of it when he was getting his ass kicked.

This is a GREAT example of why the Florida stand your ground law is not something we want. You can argue self defense as a mitigating circumstance, but he picked a fight and got his ass kicked as a result. So he is partially responsible for the consequences.

That's maybe true in a moral sense, but I don't think it should be in a legal sense. Also, I believe it's wrong to say he picked a fight. He picked the chance for a confrontation, but if the kid swung first he picked the fight, and the responsibility for what happened lies with him.

I have a real problem with the idea that you have no right to confront anyone about anything if you are armed. You're saying you can't tell someone not to butt in front of you in line because they might go off on you, (which I've personally seen happen) in which case you're the bad guy instigator and thus can't defend yourself?

[texasprowler]

Zimmerman should have waited until he was completely unconscious, then called 911 a second time for a hearse, or at least a sternly worded letter from the UN.

[illbits]

He walks, but not before his life is ruined for surviving. This case will reinforce the need for stand your ground laws across the nation.

[jshuberg]

Well, being a participant in a fight makes you responsible for the consequences of that fight.

Not necessarily. I don't have a link at the moment, but there is a MN supreme court ruling that speaks to being a reluctant participant. You can be an active participant in an argument, but be an unwilling participant if the other guy escalates to a fist fight. You can be an active participant in a fist fight, but an unwilling participant if the other guy escalates it to a knife fight. At each escalation of the force continuum, you have the opportunity to regain an unwilling participant status at that level by attempting to retreat from the encounter at the point of escalation. I wouldn't suggest this though, as it's not as black and white in the eyes of a jury, and if there is any question as to whether you attempted to retreat and deescalate, you could easily find yourself screwed.

Following someone, even chasing someone isn't a crime. Neither is ignoring the advice of a 911 operator. Until the encounter escalated to violence, nothing Zimmerman did would have stripped him of his unwilling participant status to the violence.

This is a GREAT example of why the Florida stand your ground law is not something we want. You can argue self defense as a mitigating circumstance, but he picked a fight and got his ass kicked as a result. So he is partially responsible for the consequences.

A. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with Florida's stand your ground law.
B. He didn't pick the fight. Not according to the eyewitness testimony and evidence we've seen thus far.
C. He is only criminally responsible if he was a willing participant in the crime. What happened between them 2 minutes earlier or two weeks earlier doesn't matter.

[Humphrey Bogart]

but he picked a fight and got his ass kicked as a result. So he is partially responsible for the consequences.

"Heffay"...What's the English Translation of that word...is it 'Fart-Nozzle" ?????

[Heffay]

That's maybe true in a moral sense, but I don't think it should be in a legal sense. Also, I believe it's wrong to say he picked a fight. He picked the chance for a confrontation, but if the kid swung first he picked the fight, and the responsibility for what happened lies with him.

Criminally, you're probably right. Civilly, not so much. Zimmerman made choices that night that ended in the death of Martin. He made bad decisions, and Martin ended up dying partially as a result of that.

I have a real problem with the idea that you have no right to confront anyone about anything if you are armed. You're saying you can't tell someone not to butt in front of you in line because they might go off on you, (which I've personally seen happen) in which case you're the bad guy instigator and thus can't defend yourself?

I'm not saying you don't have the right to confront someone. I'm saying that if you do, you shouldn't get the enhanced legal protection that stand your ground provides. You still get self defense, but may have to prove it in front of a jury of your peers.

A. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with Florida's stand your ground law.

Zimmerman's lawyers did use the stand your ground law to defend his actions. This is why the Florida law is a horrible template for other states looking at doing it. There needs to be an unwilling participant clause. If you get involved, you still have legal protection, but not the enhanced security of stand your ground.

[illbits]

"Heffay"...What's the English Translation of that word...is it 'Fart-Nozzle" ?????

The English translation of Heffay is actually "Joan Peterson."

[jshuberg]

Ummm, exactly what "enhanced protections" are you thinking are associated with stand your ground?

[Heffay]

Ummm, exactly what "enhanced protections" are you thinking are associated with stand your ground?

Can't be charged with a crime, versus having to defend yourself in a trial. Zimmerman's lawyers tried to get it thrown out at the grand jury if I recall correctly, saying because of Florida's law, he couldn't be charged.

[jshuberg]

Ummmm, last I checked he *was* in fact charged with a crime. It kinda shows your understanding of stand your ground laws is false. So far your arguments seem to be pretty much empty on facts. You're not a liberal are you