New Photo of George Zimmerman released

[911scanner]

Heffay.... At this point, unless you were there, you do not have all of the facts; much like the people's opinions you are chastising in this thread, and have been happy to let them know in the past.

If the bulk of your knowledge comes from what you've read in the media, like most of us here, then after yesterday you have to logically reconsider your opinion. Being that it took 9 months for this little gem to be seen, with which much "hullabaloo-about-nothing" reporting being disproved, any media information up to this point has to be totally thrown out and all information totally reassessed.

Now, will you or most anybody else do this very thing? I say no, they won't. Those who think he's guilty will say this picture says nothing, and those who think he's innocent will say that the picture says everything. Bottom line, it sure tells a tale that heretofore has not been told.

And on that note....

[Heffay]

Heffay.... At this point, unless you were there, you do not have all of the facts; much like the people's opinions you are chastising in this thread, and have been happy to let them know in the past.

I agree, I don't know all the facts. As I said, my issue is with Stand your Ground as Florida implemented it. And how if it did happen as I believe it did, then it's a huge problem. You should not be able to shoot your way out of a situation you got yourself into. Or you can, but be ready for the manslaughter charges.

[Erud]

My whole problem is with stand your ground as currently being discussed. I want an unwilling participant clause in it, instead of relying on previous court rulings implying that it exists. Now the state has to charge him despite his actions not violating the letter of the law. This is bad.

I also think that if you're going to become a vigilante, you should be susceptible to civil actions if you make bad decisions. Just like people are currently legally responsible for every other bad decision they may make. I don't see why getting in a gunfight should exempt you from those consequences any more than killing someone while driving drunk.

Driving drunk is a crime. Following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not. Killing someone who attacked you and is beating the crap out of you(even if you were following them) is very different than killing a random innocent bystander while driving drunk.

[Heffay]

Driving drunk is a crime. Following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not. Killing someone who attacked you and is beating the crap out of you(even if you were following them) is very different than killing a random innocent bystander while driving drunk.

I agree. It's very different. That's why we're talking a different charge, or civil penalties.

[jshuberg]

My whole problem is with stand your ground as currently being discussed. I want an unwilling participant clause in it, instead of relying on previous court rulings implying that it exists. Now the state has to charge him despite his actions not violating the letter of the law. This is bad.

No, you're whole problem is that you don't actually understand either the FL or MN laws, and are making things up in your mind to fill the gaps. When people who *do* understand the law attempt to educate you, you argue and refuse to accept what you currently believe is just plain wrong, even when statues and case law are provided demonstrating that you're wrong. Then you take it one step further and start arguing how the things that you've made up in your mind is so unjust the laws need to be changed. Then you blame it on your instructor.

Seriously dude, the problem isn't with the law. The problem is in your head, the fact that whats inside of it is wrong, and you refuse to let it go and replace it with the actual facts.

[Heffay]

My whole problem is with stand your ground as currently being discussed. I want an unwilling participant clause in it, instead of relying on previous court rulings implying that it exists. Now the state has to charge him despite his actions not violating the letter of the law. This is bad.

No, you're whole problem is that you don't actually understand either the FL or MN laws, and are making things up in your mind to fill the gaps. When people who *do* understand the law attempt to educate you, you argue and refuse to accept what you currently believe is just plain wrong, even when statues and case law are provided demonstrating that you're wrong. Then you take it one step further and start arguing how the things that you've made up in your mind is so unjust the laws need to be changed. Then you blame it on your instructor.

Seriously dude, the problem isn't with the law. The problem is in your head, the fact that whats inside of it is wrong, and you refuse to let it go and replace it with the actual facts.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You don't think the stand your ground law needs an unwilling participant clause, and I do. So be it.

[jshuberg]

Are you for real?

Both MN and FL *do* have as a requirement for the use of lethal force to be a reluctant participant. That's what I've been telling you this whole thread. Do you not understand these words? You *really* need to take another class and flush this crap out of your head.

[Heffay]

Are you for real?

Both MN and FL *do* have as a requirement for the use of lethal force to be a reluctant participant. Do you not understand these words? You *really* need to take another class and flush this crap out of your head.

In the code itself?

[jshuberg]

Take another class, please. Take notes if you have to. You're lack of basic knowledge is frightening for someone with a carry permit.

[Heffay]

Take another class, please. Take notes if you have to. You're lack of basic knowledge is frightening for someone with a carry permit.

Are you going to answer the question? Link to the law, please. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. I honestly don't know if unwilling participant is part of the law, or if that's just from previous court cases. My understanding is that it's from the courts.

[Jeff Bergquist]

My whole problem is with stand your ground as currently being discussed. I want an unwilling participant clause in it, instead of relying on previous court rulings implying that it exists. Now the state has to charge him despite his actions not violating the letter of the law. This is bad.

I also think that if you're going to become a vigilante, you should be susceptible to civil actions if you make bad decisions. Just like people are currently legally responsible for every other bad decision they may make. I don't see why getting in a gunfight should exempt you from those consequences any more than killing someone while driving drunk. If you really are an unwilling participant, stand your ground not only makes perfect sense, but it shouldn't even be necessary (although we all know it is). If you're running around looking for trouble, you better have a solid self defense case though.

I think I'm the one who will have to agree to disagree here. IMO being a "vigilante" is legally no different than being Joe Citizen, and either you broke the law or you didn't. As for your analogy, driving drunk is agreed to be a public danger no matter what others are doing. Watching, or even following someone in public without ill intent is only potentially dangerous to others depending on what they do, and deciding to put a beatdown on someone because you don't like them following you is in itself both illegal and potentially hazardous to the initiator's well being, as it IMO should be. In the larger social sense, I don't think it's a bad thing if people are forced to recognize that initiating violent actions often risks your own safety.

[Heffay]

In the larger social sense, I don't think it's a bad thing if people are forced to recognize that initiating violent actions often risks your own safety.

How does adding an "unwilling participant" clause to stand your ground change that? I mean, I agree with everything you said, but I don't see how my desire to see this clause makes it more difficult for a responsible permit holder.

[Jeff Bergquist]

In the larger social sense, I don't think it's a bad thing if people are forced to recognize that initiating violent actions often risks your own safety.

How does adding an "unwilling participant" clause to stand your ground change that? I mean, I agree with everything you said, but I don't see how my desire to see this clause makes it more difficult for a responsible permit holder.

It probably doesn't as long as the term is rigidly defined. IOW, if my theory of events is correct, prosecuting Zimmerman for not being an "unwilling participant" would be a miscarriage of justice, but if Zimmerman laid hands on Martin, or used abusive language I can see that he might then have to forfeit "unwilling participant" protections.

[Heffay]

It probably doesn't as long as the term is rigidly defined. IOW, if my theory of events is correct, prosecuting Zimmerman for not being an "unwilling participant" would be a miscarriage of justice, but if Zimmerman laid hands on Martin, or used abusive language I can see that he might then have to forfeit "unwilling participant" protections.

Even then, he can still rely on self defense arguments. However, that is where I'd like to see a trial, to see if his actions were "reasonable".

Stand your ground for when you do nothing wrong. Self defense for when you start operating.

[jshuberg]

The term vigilante is thrown around a lot regarding this case, and it shouldn't.

A vigilante is someone who presumes to cast judgement on someone and imposes a sentence after the crime. Think lynch mobs or honor killings/mutilations. The person being judged is being denied due process. This is a crime.

A vigilante is *not* someone who chooses to police their neighborhood as a neighborhood watch, or chase a criminal and arrest them, or follow a suspicious character while on the phone with a 911 operator. Every person has a right to do these things. It is explicitly spelled out in state law the arrest powers granted the everyday citizen. A person who does these things is not a vigilante unless he imposes his own sense of justice *after the crime*. If he apprehends a criminal and turns him over to law enforcement or a magistrate, he is not a vigilante, but a normal citizen executing his rights.

Now, it's not usually a very good idea to go around arresting criminals unless you have a badge. A lot of people will incorrectly associate this behavior with vigilantism, and you are taking a huge physical and legal risk. Bad guys sue the cops that arrest them, or file complaints all the time. They have the power of their department and union and are not personally on the hook financially if the bad guy claims it was an inappropriate arrest. The average citizen does not have these protections, and will almost certainly be sued and have to pay the legal costs out of pocket. Some security personnel may be protected by their employer for performing a citizens arrest while on the job, but the average person is screwed.

Again, following Martin may not have been a good idea, but it was not a crime, and it was not vigilantism. This is evidenced by the fact that he called 911 and requested police assistance.