George Zimmerman - Florida Unarmed Teen Shooting

[goalie]

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

BS.

He was LEGALLY following someone who fit the description of burglars who had previously gotten away. The only thing relevant is whether or not he started the fisticuffs. If he did not, and the dead person did, it's a LEGALLY JUSTIFIED shoot.

Whether it agrees with your morals or opinions don't matter, but that dispatcher said nothing legally binding.

[Heffay]

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

BS.

He was LEGALLY following someone who fit the description of burglars who had previously gotten away. The only thing relevant is whether or not he started the fisticuffs. If he did not, and the dead person did, it's a LEGALLY JUSTIFIED shoot.

Whether it agrees with your morals or opinions don't matter, but that dispatcher said nothing legally binding.

According to the letter of the law, you're right. Stand your ground is flawed in that way, at least the current implementations of it.

[goett047]

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

BS.

He was LEGALLY following someone who fit the description of burglars who had previously gotten away. The only thing relevant is whether or not he started the fisticuffs. If he did not, and the dead person did, it's a LEGALLY JUSTIFIED shoot.

Whether it agrees with your morals or opinions don't matter, but that dispatcher said nothing legally binding.

According to the letter of the law, you're right. Stand your ground is flawed in that way, at least the current implementations of it.

But that does not make Zimmerman guilty.

[Heffay]

But that does not make Zimmerman guilty.

Isn't that what I just said?

[goett047]

But that does not make Zimmerman guilty.

Isn't that what I just said?

Just typing for the hell of it. My bad

[jshuberg]

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

Absolutely not! Where are you getting this information? A 911 operator is not a law enforcement officer, and their advice is just that, advice. Ignoring the advice of a 911 operator is no different from ignoring the advice of an ice cream vendor. Following Martin was a perfectly legal activity, and a 911 operator has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever.

A lot of people are making a big deal of the fact that Zimmerman got out of the car to tail Martin to determine where he was going. Again, this is a perfectly legal activity, and does nothing to negate him being an unwilling participant in the violence, or from a self defense claim. In fact, you can get into a heated argument with someone, and still remain an unwilling participant to any violence that may result from the argument. I'd have to look it up, but there is a MN supreme court case that states exactly this. As long as you are not enticing the other party to violence, no legal activities before the incident becomes violent can be used to eliminate a persons legal right to self defense.

As long as 1) Zimmerman didn't initiate or goad Martin into the violence, and 2) Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, and 3) No lesser force would have been sufficient to stop the threat, then Zimmerman legally killed Martin in self defense. It's that simple.

Stand your ground is flawed in that way, at least the current implementations of it.

It is absolutely not flawed. Stumbling into a deadly encounter, being a stupid idiot, or someone proclaiming that you 'should have known better' does not and should not remove a persons claim of self defense. Once you allow lawful behavior to be used to nullify a self defense claim, you have opened Pandora's box. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home, or lived in a safer neighborhood, etc. When lawful activities can be used to strip a person of their rights, it's a very short step to effectively not having those rights.

[tman]

The beginning of the confrontation doesn't start there, as you well know. Anyone losing in a fight instantly becomes an unwilling participant at that point.

Losing a fight is not the same as being prevented from extricating yourself from the situation, as you well know.

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

If someone you didn't know was leaning on your car, just looking through a window, in a parking lot, and you said, "hey, what the hell are you doing with my car," are you "the aggressor?"
What if you think the guy was getting ready to break into it, so you follow him when he walks away, while you're on the phone to 911? Have you become the aggressor yet?

Where do you think the line is drawn?

[gyrfalcon]

Where do you think the line is drawn?

When you engage them at 1000+ yards at night with thermal?

[Heffay]

It is absolutely not flawed. Stumbling into a deadly encounter, being a stupid idiot, or someone proclaiming that you 'should have known better' does not and should not remove a persons claim of self defense. Once you allow lawful behavior to be used to nullify a self defense claim, you have opened Pandora's box. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home, or lived in a safer neighborhood, etc. When lawful activities can be used to strip a person of their rights, it's a very short step to effectively not having those rights.

You're misrepresenting my position. If you're engaged in lawful behavior, self defense is still a legitimate defense. However, your actions have consequences and therefore should be subject to review by a jury of your peers *in certain situations*. Stand your ground in its current implementation doesn't allow for such a review.

I see no reason why, in the event of a shooting where the whole unwilling participate clause may be in doubt that it shouldn't be referred to a jury. They are the ones who should determine guilt or innocence based on all the facts at the trial. Current implementations take that oversight away, which is wrong and why people are using it as a defense against road rage incidents gone bad. When the question of unwilling participant isn't in doubt, that is where stand your ground makes sense and doesn't need jury oversight.

I see a lot of people here using the phrase "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Apparently they don't even want to be judged by 12 to review their actions in case they made some really horrible decisions. Or maybe some people just think they should be able to make horrible decisions that end in someone else dying and not have to worry about the consequences.

[jdege]

I see no reason why, in the event of a shooting where the whole unwilling participate clause may be in doubt that it shouldn't be referred to a jury.

The only way to stop being an "unwilling participant" is to engage in an illegal act.

If you assault someone, you are not an unwilling participant. But approaching someone on the street is not an illegal act, and by doing so you do not stop being an unwilling participant.

You're right, that if there were reason to believe that Zimmerman was not an unwilling participant, the case should be referred to a jury. But for there to be reason to believe that Zimmerman was not a unwilling participant, there would have to be evidence that Zimmerman committed an illegal act.

And there is no such evidence.

[Heffay]

I see no reason why, in the event of a shooting where the whole unwilling participate clause may be in doubt that it shouldn't be referred to a jury.

The only way to stop being an "unwilling participant" is to engage in an illegal act.

I don't see it that way. If you're participating in a neighborhood watch program, you're intentionally becoming a willing participant when you confront people. In that case, you should no longer be protected under the Stand your Ground laws, although you still have full rights to defend yourself. It's just that when you do, your actions should be reviewable by a jury.

[goett047]

By that logic police officers should not be able to stand their ground either...

[Chunkychuck]

It is absolutely not flawed. Stumbling into a deadly encounter, being a stupid idiot, or someone proclaiming that you 'should have known better' does not and should not remove a persons claim of self defense. Once you allow lawful behavior to be used to nullify a self defense claim, you have opened Pandora's box. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home, or lived in a safer neighborhood, etc. When lawful activities can be used to strip a person of their rights, it's a very short step to effectively not having those rights.

You're misrepresenting my position. If you're engaged in lawful behavior, self defense is still a legitimate defense. However, your actions have consequences and therefore should be subject to review by a jury of your peers *in certain situations*. Stand your ground in its current implementation doesn't allow for such a review.

I see no reason why, in the event of a shooting where the whole unwilling participate clause may be in doubt that it shouldn't be referred to a jury. They are the ones who should determine guilt or innocence based on all the facts at the trial. Current implementations take that oversight away, which is wrong and why people are using it as a defense against road rage incidents gone bad. When the question of unwilling participant isn't in doubt, that is where stand your ground makes sense and doesn't need jury oversight.

I see a lot of people here using the phrase "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Apparently they don't even want to be judged by 12 to review their actions in case they made some really horrible decisions. Or maybe some people just think they should be able to make horrible decisions that end in someone else dying and not have to worry about the consequences.

Are you advocating then that the DA in Minneapolis was wrong in not sending to a jury (Grand Jury or trial jury) the man that pursued the mugger last year and ultimatedly ended up shooting the mugger when the mugger drew his weapon first? There was plenty of discussion on here and other forums as to whether he was an "unwilling participant"

[Heffay]

By that logic police officers should not be able to stand their ground either...

Since when are police subject to the laws they enforce?

[Heffay]

Are you advocating then that the DA in Minneapolis was wrong in not sending to a jury (Grand Jury or trial jury) the man that pursued the mugger last year and ultimatedly ended up shooting the mugger when the mugger drew his weapon first? There was plenty of discussion on here and other forums as to whether he was an "unwilling participant"

The DA determined that he acted in self defense, even in the absence of stand your ground laws. Who am I to judge his findings? It essentially worked like the system is supposed to work. I have no problems with the results of that particular case.