Florida, Florida, Florida

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Historically, in order to use the argument of "self-defense" to justify a homicide of an attacker, you had to demonstrate that certain conditions existed, most commonly a) you attempted to retreat/avoid the situation and b) a threat of imminent danger to life/limb was present.

Before SYG, there was the "castle doctrine" which basically gives certain legal protections to a person using force in protecting their home/dwelling (their "castle") against an intruder (i.e. someone who is not invited and enters the home/dwelling illegally); most often, it is raised when the person uses deadly force against the intruder, but it can also be applicable even when no death or injury occurs.  The basis of CD was that requiring a person who was already in his/her home to "retreat" was unreasonable.

SYG is similar to CD but SYG extends beyond the home/dwelling provided that he/she is in a place/location they are lawfully permitted to be and removes the duty to retreat/evade the situation.

Not every state has SYG or CD, and of those that do, the conditions/protections/etc. vary amongst them.  Burdens of proof are different.  What constitutes "deadly force" is different.  To answer your question, though... Wisconsin does not have SYG, so what you portrayed in theory is not SYG.  Though if you could justify following someone around and were subsequently attacked by that person, you might have a defense in a SYG state if you injured or killed the attacker (regardless of whether or not you used a gun).

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

I guess the tricky part for me is the part highlighted in RED.

I just don't like the idea of armed civilians deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many bad things can happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent.

[lab_warrior]

I think the Bunk and Lester Freamon convey my views on this whole disgusting
and embarrassing episode.

http://www.youtube.com/v/e6r2a2PaQPI&fs=1&source=uds

[ChicosBailBonds]

This wasn't a stand your ground case.  The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.

Correct.  Not sure why people keep bringing it up, it was never invoked.  Didn't need to be, they could claim self defense, which they did, and got the verdict that was fairly obvious because it was so difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise.

[MerrittsMustache]

This wasn't a stand your ground case.  The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.

Correct.  Not sure why people keep bringing it up, it was never invoked.  Didn't need to be, they could claim self defense, which they did, and got the verdict that was fairly obvious because it was so difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise.

I never said this was a SYG case. If you re-read the post I was responding to, Rawdog stated: "Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok.  period.  I don't care about this instance." 

He was speaking in general terms and his "fact" was not factual.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think the Bunk and Lester Freamon convey my views on this whole disgusting
and embarrassing episode.

http://www.youtube.com/v/e6r2a2PaQPI&fs=1&source=uds

Great show. 

Makes you wonder where the folks that are pushing the race angle to their own benefit, why they do not scream at the top of their lungs about what's going on with members of the community.  On the weekend news shows they were saying that over 50% of homicides in this country are committed by African Americans despite making up only 12.7% of the population.  Talk about overindexing.  An African American who is murdered...93% of the time it is at the hands of another African American.  Staggering.

[Eldon]

The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length.  Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The flip side of the stand your ground law is some people's lives have been saved as a result.  Not in this case with TM, but in other cases where the assailant was armed also, it has meant a fighting chance.   I remember arguments like this on the Castle Doctrine...which allows deadly force if you home is invaded by someone to protect property.  Lots of people hate that law, but how is a homeowner supposed to know if the invader is armed, what their intentions are, etc.  For me that one is pretty simple...don't invade a home and you don't have to worry about getting killed by an armed homeowner.

[StillAWarrior]

The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length.  Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.

I saw that...although it does raise the question of what they were discussing.  They didn't have any instructions relating to SYG, so without more information from that juror, I can't help but wonder if they were talking about the actual SYG statute; their understanding of the actual statute; or something entirely different (e.g., self defense) that they referred to as SYG.  I'm not saying they didn't talk about SYG, but over the years I've seen and heard jurors use legal terms that they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about (hell...I see a lot of lawyers doing it...and I'm sure I've done it plenty of times myself).  Just because the juror said they talked about SYG, doesn't mean they actually talked about or considered that legal doctrine.  I could definitely see a juror saying, "I think you've got a right to stand your ground...after all, if you fear for your life, you're allowed to protect yourself."  A statement like that, which I've heard from people in personal conversations and read on message boards, shows that the person saying it is confusing two different legal concepts (SYG and self defense).  The fact that a lot of people still think that the trial dealt with SYG (as opposed to the jurors discussing it -- which, as you mentioned, has been alleged) just shows that this is not an uncommon mistake.

[lab_warrior]

The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length.  Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.

So she took time out of negotiating her book deal to deliberate?  Good for her. 

[Benny B]

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

I guess the tricky part for me is the part highlighted in RED.

I just don't like the idea of armed civilians deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many bad things can happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent.

I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post.  Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?

Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert).  You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.

This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG.  This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration.  These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.

Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post.  Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?

Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert).  You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.

This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG.  This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration.  These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.

Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.

If you are carrying a firearm on neighborhood watch, you are doing it wrong.

Carry a flashlight. Wear bright colors. Carry a phone. Make yourself known, so the bad guys know you are around. Neighborhood watch is about presence and prevention. It's not about following or engagement.

So, the short answer is, no, I don't think Zimmerman needed to carry a firearm for his safety.

As far as your last statement, I don't really know what to say about that. I don't care about media, race, gender, conservative, liberal, etc.

Bottom line for me:
I don't like citizens carrying firearms and following other citizens around just in case that person MIGHT commit a crime. Regular people aren't trained for it, and a lot of bad things can happen. 

[Pakuni]

Bottom line for me:
I don't like citizens carrying firearms and following other citizens around just in case that person MIGHT commit a crime. Regular people aren't trained for it, and a lot of bad things can happen. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post.  Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?

Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert).  You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.

This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG.  This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration.  These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.

Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.

I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions.  People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black.  The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place.  So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense. 

Here's the deal in my situation.  I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch.  Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain).  On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc.  So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids.  We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us.  Just common sense.  Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?

[Pakuni]

I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions.  People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black.  The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place.  So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense. 

Here's the deal in my situation.  I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch.  Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain).  On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc.  So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids.  We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us.  Just common sense.  Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?

Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.

Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.

[Henry Sugar]

I was really hoping this thread was about the hilarious stupidity of Florida.

Florida Man Sets Library On Fire In Hope Firefighters Will Let Him Help Put It Out

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/strange/floriduh-blog/sfl-flduh-fake-firefighter-20130722,0,4007986.story?track=rss

just one of many from the amazing Florida Man

https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions.  People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black.  The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place.  So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense. 

Here's the deal in my situation.  I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch.  Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain).  On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc.  So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids.  We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us.  Just common sense.  Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?

When the police send out those fliers, do they encourage watch members to carry firearms and follow any suspicious characters they see?

[Lennys Tap]

Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.

Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.

I agree on some of your points, but do we know who confronted whom?

[MerrittsMustache]

Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.

Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.

That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.

Also, Zimmerman was never told by police not to confront Martin. He was told by police that they didn't need him to follow Martin and he then stopped following him. It is believed that Martin actually initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman.

Don't let facts get in the way of your outrage though.

[Lennys Tap]

That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.

Good point. All husbands aren't under suspicion of wishing harm on their wives, but when a wife goes missing it's where the cops look first.

[Pakuni]

That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.

Kid wasn't wandering. He was walking home from the store.
And how did he "fit the description"? He was young. And black.
Nice poisoning of the well there at the end though.

It is believed that Martin actually initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman.

Believed by who?
Think about what you're suggesting.
Zimmerman is stalking the kid around the neighborhood. He admits this.
The kid calls a friend and says some "creepy" guy is following him. This is not in dispute.
Zimmerman tells cops the kid ran away from him (i.e. the exact opposite of starting a confrontation).
Now, you believe that after those events, Martin - who had just ran away from Zimmerman - doubled back and pursued Zimmerman? That sounds credible to you?
Or is it perhaps more credible that it was the guy who had been stalking, the guy who had expressed unhappiness to police when Martin ran away from him, and the guy who cops described by police as "overzealous" ... that it was that guy who did the pursuing?
Don't let logic get in the way of your fantasy.


Oh, and for the record, I am indeed outraged when a person gets gunned down for no good reason.

[mu_hilltopper]

Martin's girlfriend believed he began the assault, landing the first punch.  Besides a video of the event, she is literally the best person on the planet to make that judgement.

Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason.    Don't hit people. 

[lab_warrior]

Martin's girlfriend believed he began the assault, landing the first punch.  Besides a video of the event, she is literally the best person on the planet to make that judgement.

Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason.    Don't hit people.  

Don't hit people, but it's TOTES KEWL to shoot people after being hit.

EDIT:  If everyone was allowed to legally shoot people they got into a fight with,
this country's population would drop to ZERO, very quickly. 

Good point. All husbands aren't under suspicion of wishing harm on their wives, but when a wife goes missing it's where the cops look first.

The police don't (usually) track the husbands down, confront them, then shoot them in the chest, though.

Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion?

I believe you've captured "America" well here.

I just don't like the idea of armed civilians morons with a double digit IQ and triple digit income deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many Of course bad things can will happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent, but sadly par for the course in America.

Fixed.

And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.

Man, if I could only get all of the citizens of the world together, to join hands and weep simultaneously for poor George Zimmerman.  The floodgates are open here thinking that the guy might be persona non grata for the rest of his life...that, surely, is the REAL tragedy.

[Pakuni]

Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason.    Don't hit people. 

Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.

[lab_warrior]

Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.

Remember, Martin was also armed with skittles...so it was a totally fair fight.

[mu_hilltopper]

Don't hit people, but it's TOTES KEWL to shoot people after being hit.

Well, true, it's not so much the punch in the nose as it is the bashing of the skull on the sidewalk.   That's where you cross the line from going to the hospital to .. a visit to the morgue.