Does US law administered by the justice dept. trump Florida's "right to stand your ground law?"This is going to get very interesting
The problem for the Justice Department is going to be the lack of a federal violation to enforce in he first place. There is no general federal murder charge. This does not really appear to be a hate crime that could implicate federal law, and because the shooter was not a law enforcement officer or government actor, the civil rights laws (such as section 1983) are likely not applicable.
This may have to be left to the Florida authorities.
No law excusing violence should ever be entirely subjective based on the perception of the person committing the violence.
There has to be an objective or 'reasonableness' standard. I agree with Jim Everett, they didnt need a law because self-defense was a well defined concept in the courts (and requires that the fear have been reasonable).
This may have to be left to the Florida authorities.
And you can bet charges are going to be filed in a case about as big as What's her dink?.. Anthony...
This one is gonna be a gimme. Hey Florida, Why do you get all these super hi profiles cases?
Oh great.. now we are gonna get Nancy Grace...
Seriously, I heard this guy was a cop wanna be... 57 calls to 911... ANd I sure am used to people who get a little bit of Authority and become Monsters...
And you can bet charges are going to be filed in a case about as big as What's her dink?.. Anthony...
This one is gonna be a gimme. Hey Florida, Why do you get all these super hi profiles cases?
Oh great.. now we are gonna get Nancy Grace...
Seriously, I heard this guy was a cop wanna be... 57 calls to 911... ANd I sure am used to people who get a little bit of Authority and become Monsters...
Joe
I thumb downed you because, reading your post reminded me just how much I hate Nancy Grace. Why!
__________________
If you say something trivial and want it to sound important, just say your age before it.
"I'm 45, and I want a sandwich!"
I would not be for passing any sort of law at all.
Hundreds of years of common law jurisprudence has long recognized a right to protect your home and person. This law flies in the face of that history and is terrible.
That could be anybody's kid that got shot.
Legislators who voted for it should be more than ashamed, and Governor Bush, who signed it, will hopefully rot in hell, alongside his brother
With or without the law, I think the situation would have had the same outcome. The law as written, will not protect Zimmerman if it is found that he was the aggressor.
While I respect your right to disagree with the law and the dissatisfaction with those who approved it, wishing that person will rot in hell is troubling.
the third 911 call from the top is the smoking gun, no pun intended. if that's Martin yelling for help and then there's a clear gunshot in the background, doesn't that prove he was not the aggressor?
__________________
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. (See Tebucky Jones)
the third 911 call from the top is the smoking gun, no pun intended. if that's Martin yelling for help and then there's a clear gunshot in the background, doesn't that prove he was not the aggressor?
Not really. I will not listen to the tapes because I find the recording of a person dying to be a little unsettling.
Him yelling for help does not in itself mean he was not the aggressor. He could have gone after and threatened Zimmerman who then started whipping Martin's butt. I am not suggesting that is what happened but just pointing out that yelling for help does not always indicate who was the aggressor.
Does US law administered by the justice dept. trump Florida's "right to stand your ground law?"This is going to get very interesting
I don't know if that's going to be a factor.
If the investigation determines that Zimmerman was standing his ground, I don't think that the Justice Department will go much further.
However, since the reports seem to indicate that Zimmerman got out of his car, and chased Martin, the "stand your ground law" could become irrelevant. Chasing someone and shooting them isn't "standing your ground."
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500
The problem for the Justice Department is going to be the lack of a federal violation to enforce in he first place. There is no general federal murder charge. This does not really appear to be a hate crime that could implicate federal law,
Well, there are reports now that on the 911 tapes, Zimmerman can be heard making a racial slur right before he chases Martin down. That could be enough cause for a hate crime investigation.
Not really. I will not listen to the tapes because I find the recording of a person dying to be a little unsettling.
Him yelling for help does not in itself mean he was not the aggressor. He could have gone after and threatened Zimmerman who then started whipping Martin's butt. I am not suggesting that is what happened but just pointing out that yelling for help does not always indicate who was the aggressor.
I think you have to get pretty far fetched to come up with scenarios where Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Martin was walking away from Zimmerman. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend having a conversation and continued to have a conversation with her as he was walking away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman closed on him. He was carrying a can of ice tea and some candy that he had just bought at the convenience store.
It isn't a question of whether someone was an "aggressor" - it's really simply a question of whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force. Did he reasonably fear for his life?
"I really have enjoyed talking with you baby, but hold on, I gotta go beat this guy to death with my Arizona tea."
It just doesn't add up to a credible story of reasonable fear of Zimmerman's life.
Not really. I will not listen to the tapes because I find the recording of a person dying to be a little unsettling.
Him yelling for help does not in itself mean he was not the aggressor. He could have gone after and threatened Zimmerman who then started whipping Martin's butt. I am not suggesting that is what happened but just pointing out that yelling for help does not always indicate who was the aggressor.
Yeah but if Zimmerman is whipping the kids butt, there is no need for Zimmerman to shoot him.
Often times these things turn out to be a lot different at the end than they seemed at the beginning (see Duke lacrosse case) but more and more I'm convinced this one just may be at face value. And that's just plain horrible.
I think you have to get pretty far fetched to come up with scenarios where Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Martin was walking away from Zimmerman. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend having a conversation and continued to have a conversation with her as he was walking away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman closed on him. He was carrying a can of ice tea and some candy that he had just bought at the convenience store.
It isn't a question of whether someone was an "aggressor" - it's really simply a question of whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force. Did he reasonably fear for his life?
"I really have enjoyed talking with you baby, but hold on, I gotta go beat this guy to death with my Arizona tea."
It just doesn't add up to a credible story of reasonable fear of Zimmerman's life.
The problem with the law is that it allows people to create and/or escalate a situation and then shoot someone.
Essentially it allows someone to "bait" a person into making a threatening move and allowing that someone to shoot the baited person legally.
And the someone does not have to necessarily fear for his life. Just that he may suffer bodily harm or that a forcible felony is about to take place.
__________________
I didn't come from no damn monkey!
The problem with the law is that it allows people to create and/or escalate a situation and then shoot someone.
Essentially it allows someone to "bait" a person into making a threatening move and allowing that someone to shoot the baited person legally.
And the someone does not have to necessarily fear for his life. Just that he may suffer bodily harm or that a forcible felony is about to take place.
I just can't believe that there is no standard of objectivity or reasonableness that goes with it. If that's truly the case, that it is based entirely on the subjective perception of the killer - then it challenges the our entire society and how we interact.
It simply cannot be that way.
And actually the law reads:
"if he or she reasonably believes [deadly force] is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Linear Mode
