Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[Junior]

Here you go:

 

Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford, about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived, after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami.

 

According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.

 

Full Article

 

Yes, he was living there temporarily. Therefore, walking home.

 

Would you prefer I had said "He was walking through the neighborhood where he was staying, to the house he was living in at that moment"?

[Mavric]

I'm more and more convinced with each of your posts that you haven't researched anything about this case on your own bur are just going by what you've heard.

 

Simply support your statement. If you know more than those of us saying "home," then by all means support that.

 

I'm pretty darned sure you can't. Martin was at that house watching the ball game. That place was his base in that neighborhood, where he belonged. Was it his home, as I define my home? No. Trayvon Martin lived in different family circumstances than I. But that doesn't mean he didn't belong there, that doesn't mean that's not where he should have been going.

 

So if that wasn't his "home" by whatever standard of definition you want to use, where should he have been going?

Provided a link above. That wasn't exactly a secret. Anyone who has followed the case as much as Junior is trying to make it look like he has would have run across that.

[Mavric]

Here you go:

 

Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford, about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived, after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami.

 

According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.

 

Full Article

Yes, he was living there temporarily. Therefore, walking home.

 

Would you prefer I had said "He was walking through the neighborhood where he was staying, to the house he was living in at that moment"?

Where does it say he was living there temporarily? Do you have anything saying he was there for more than that night? I wouldn't call somewhere I was staying for a night my "home."

[knapplc]

I'm more and more convinced with each of your posts that you haven't researched anything about this case on your own bur are just going by what you've heard.

 

Simply support your statement. If you know more than those of us saying "home," then by all means support that.

 

I'm pretty darned sure you can't. Martin was at that house watching the ball game. That place was his base in that neighborhood, where he belonged. Was it his home, as I define my home? No. Trayvon Martin lived in different family circumstances than I. But that doesn't mean he didn't belong there, that doesn't mean that's not where he should have been going.

 

So if that wasn't his "home" by whatever standard of definition you want to use, where should he have been going?

Provided a link above. That wasn't exactly a secret. Anyone who has followed the case as much as Junior is trying to make it look like he has would have run across that.

 

Ah, but you failed to answer the crucial question: Where, at that moment, should Trayvon Martin have been going?

[SECHusker]

Here you go:

 

Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford, about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived, after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami.

 

According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.

 

Full Article

 

So he was the guest of someone who lived in the community, and that warrants being followed? I see that you are bringing the kids history into the equation, how that is relevant to how he got shot I have no clue, and will let you explain.

 

If your argument is that he was troubled, ok still not relevant, and still does not show a dangerous demenaor or history.

[Junior]

Here you go:

 

Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford, about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived, after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami.

 

According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.

 

Full Article

Yes, he was living there temporarily. Therefore, walking home.

 

Would you prefer I had said "He was walking through the neighborhood where he was staying, to the house he was living in at that moment"?

Where does it say he was living there temporarily? Do you have anything saying he was there for more than that night? I wouldn't call somewhere I was staying for a night my "home."

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=15977847

 

The Martin family also criticized the Sanford police department for failing to identify their son more quickly. Martin's body was left in the morgue for three days, classified as a "John Doe." The family charges that officers didn't bother to ask neighbors if they recognized Martin, who had been staying with his father in the neighborhood.

 

 

Maybe you aren't quite as versed in the case as you think you are... or you just ignore information that doesn't fit with your narrative.

Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Or something like that.

[JJ Husker]

You want to say that if GZ didn't follow him, this never happens. Well how about, if TM ignores GZ and continues walking home, this never happens?

 

 

The difference being, and it is a key difference, that if TM ignores GZ, it's a reaction to GZ's actions, and not an action in and of itself. Cause still originates with GZ even in that scenario.

 

This not "key" for anything. That's like saying if the rape victim hadn't gone to the bar, she wouldn't have got raped. Since she initiated the action of going somewhere, she was the "cause"? C'mon, you're better than that.

 

Do you mean to imply that if I pay attention to strangers in my neighborhood, and if I ever go out on the street and inquire what that person might be doing in my neighborhood, that I am to blame for any and all actions that follow?

 

 

[Landlord]

You want to say that if GZ didn't follow him, this never happens. Well how about, if TM ignores GZ and continues walking home, this never happens?

 

 

The difference being, and it is a key difference, that if TM ignores GZ, it's a reaction to GZ's actions, and not an action in and of itself. Cause still originates with GZ even in that scenario.

 

This not "key" for anything. That's like saying if the rape victim hadn't gone to the bar, she wouldn't have got raped. Since she initiated the action of going somewhere, she was the "cause"? C'mon, you're better than that.

 

Do you mean to imply that if I pay attention to strangers in my neighborhood, and if I ever go out on the street and inquire what that person might be doing in my neighborhood, that I am to blame for any and all actions that follow?

 

 

No, it's not like saying that. It's like saying if a rapist doesn't set his eyes on a girl and follow her out of the bar, she wouldn't have gotten raped.

[knapplc]

This not "key" for anything. That's like saying if the rape victim hadn't gone to the bar, she wouldn't have got raped. Since she initiated the action of going somewhere, she was the "cause"? C'mon, you're better than that.

 

Do you mean to imply that if I pay attention to strangers in my neighborhood, and if I ever go out on the street and inquire what that person might be doing in my neighborhood, that I am to blame for any and all actions that follow?

 

The rape analogy actually works better for Trayvon Martin, though. All he did was go get snacks at halftime. He wasn't "asking for it" from Zimmerman, he was just walking.

[Junior]

You want to say that if GZ didn't follow him, this never happens. Well how about, if TM ignores GZ and continues walking home, this never happens?

 

 

The difference being, and it is a key difference, that if TM ignores GZ, it's a reaction to GZ's actions, and not an action in and of itself. Cause still originates with GZ even in that scenario.

 

This not "key" for anything. That's like saying if the rape victim hadn't gone to the bar, she wouldn't have got raped. Since she initiated the action of going somewhere, she was the "cause"? C'mon, you're better than that.

 

Do you mean to imply that if I pay attention to strangers in my neighborhood, and if I ever go out on the street and inquire what that person might be doing in my neighborhood, that I am to blame for any and all actions that follow?

 

In your hypothetical, is it the rapist or rape victim carrying a gun?

[EZ-E]

I'm confused by anyone having a strong opinion one way or the other, given the lack of clarity surrounding the actual events. Any feeling other than being conflicted doesn't really register with me.

 

Following Martin was stupid and unnecessary. Something that wouldn't even cross my mind in the same situation. But I'm not sure that in and of itself means he forfeits his right to self-defense. And that seems to be something a lot of people are arguing in a roundabout way. On the other hand we don't know for sure if he acted in self-defense because we don't know if he was attacked or did the attacking.

 

That's an extremely important point I just can't bring myself to gloss over.

 

The strong opinions over Zimmerman end right there. He had no reason to follow Martin, he was told by 911 dispatch not to follow him, and over a minute later he was engaged in an altercation with Martin, which ended in Martin being killed. This isn't rocket science. It's not confusing, you don't need any more "clarity" than that. Don't follow a kid going home after buying candy, and both Zimmerman and the kid are going about their regular lives right now.

 

Nobody is saying Zimmerman forfeits his right to self-defense. What people are saying is he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in, and a kid died. The decision to insert himself in that situation should have consequences.

 

If there were a law against being very stupid and using highly questionable judgement (this board wouldn't need mods) GZ would be in prison.

 

I am in complete agreement with The Dude here.

 

Also thought this was interesting as well. Our lawyers will probably know Alan Dershowitz:

 

"Alan Dershowitz told the BBC that the verdict was "right" and that there was "reasonable doubt" as to Zimmerman's guilt.[246] In regards to the prosecution, he said "She (State Attorney Angela Corey) submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. [...] Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor."[247][248]"

[carlfense]

And if Martin wouldn't have been walking through that neighborhood, none of it would have happened.

[Mavric]

Ah, but you failed to answer the crucial question: Where, at that moment, should Trayvon Martin have been going?

So he was the guest of someone who lived in the community, and that warrants being followed? I see that you are bringing the kids history into the equation, how that is relevant to how he got shot I have no clue, and will let you explain.

 

If your argument is that he was troubled, ok still not relevant, and still does not show a dangerous demenaor or history.

I only quoted the part about his history because that was the first article that came up when I Googled trying to find a link for Junior that no one seems to believe existed.

 

I didn't make any statements that Martin shouldn't have been there. I was originally responding to carlfense's comment that if Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him nothing would have happened. Saying if Martin wouldn't have been walking there it wouldn't have happened is just as valid and, in fact, Zimmerman had more right to be there than Martin did as that's where he lived. Anything else implies the assumption that Zimmerman was the attacker which is speculation at best and a lie at worst.

 

I've asked before and no one seemed to have an answer so I'll ask again. Zimmerman had a long history of investigating suspicious activity in that neighborhood. Had he ever confronted any of his suspects before? I don't know the answer to that question but it would seem to give some insight into if Zimmerman was telling the truth or not. If he had never confronted anyone else, it would seem fairly unlikely that this would be the first time. If he had a history of confronting people, it would make his story harder to believe.

[Mavric]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=15977847

 

The Martin family also criticized the Sanford police department for failing to identify their son more quickly. Martin's body was left in the morgue for three days, classified as a "John Doe." The family charges that officers didn't bother to ask neighbors if they recognized Martin, who had been staying with his father in the neighborhood.

 

Maybe you aren't quite as versed in the case as you think you are... or you just ignore information that doesn't fit with your narrative.

Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Or something like that.

For how long?

[SECHusker]

I'm confused by anyone having a strong opinion one way or the other, given the lack of clarity surrounding the actual events. Any feeling other than being conflicted doesn't really register with me.

 

Following Martin was stupid and unnecessary. Something that wouldn't even cross my mind in the same situation. But I'm not sure that in and of itself means he forfeits his right to self-defense. And that seems to be something a lot of people are arguing in a roundabout way. On the other hand we don't know for sure if he acted in self-defense because we don't know if he was attacked or did the attacking.

 

That's an extremely important point I just can't bring myself to gloss over.

 

The strong opinions over Zimmerman end right there. He had no reason to follow Martin, he was told by 911 dispatch not to follow him, and over a minute later he was engaged in an altercation with Martin, which ended in Martin being killed. This isn't rocket science. It's not confusing, you don't need any more "clarity" than that. Don't follow a kid going home after buying candy, and both Zimmerman and the kid are going about their regular lives right now.

 

Nobody is saying Zimmerman forfeits his right to self-defense. What people are saying is he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in, and a kid died. The decision to insert himself in that situation should have consequences.

 

If there were a law against being very stupid and using highly questionable judgement (this board wouldn't need mods) GZ would be in prison.

 

I am in complete agreement with The Dude here.

 

Also thought this was interesting as well. Our lawyers will probably know Alan Dershowitz:

 

"Alan Dershowitz told the BBC that the verdict was "right" and that there was "reasonable doubt" as to Zimmerman's guilt.[246] In regards to the prosecution, he said "She (State Attorney Angela Corey) submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. [...] Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor."[247][248]"

 

I would always be cautious when taking the words of attorney who is not licensed to practice in the state, over one who is licensed to practice in the state. While there are some common similarities between states, there are also major differences.

 

As to his point. The prosecution and State conducted shotty work. But I am willing to bet there are some attorneys that have her back as well.