So...

[sheshe2]

[Curmudgeoness]

1. That puts it in perspective.

[Cha]

2. Exactly, she. Mahalo for the same scenario

that Trayvon was in .. only this time with a girl.

[Iggo]

3. Yes, that is exactly correct.

[sheshe2]

4. So please correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying the stalker/ attacker can just shoot her if she defends herself. You are okay with this?

[Iggo]

5. No. I'm not okay with it.

I'm no gun-fucker.

[sheshe2]

7. Thank you Iggo!

[freshwest]

6. You nailed it. The latest 'but it was ____'s fault for walking down the street like ____.'

All victims should ask their killers to excuse them for the grievous crime of being alive...


Isn't that what this gets down to? Personal Death Panels? How dare _____ exist in my area?

[sheshe2]

10. Personal Death Panels or

The Exterminator Squads bought and paid for the brothers Koch and their ilk.

Makes my blood boil, freshwest.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. "Army of One"

A snarkily arrogant "fuck you--I've got violent tendencies and I'm looking for an excuse to use 'em" message I've seen on the occasional bumper sticker.

Ten to one that'd be a young rethuglican.

[sheshe2]

29. The death panels.

Or the exterminators...promoted by the NRA. They do have a right to bear arms after all. We just don't have the right to defend the indefensible acts.

You are right. How dare we exist at all!

[Spazito]

8. So true...

now that SYG rules apply.

Very well done.

[Recursion]

13. I don't see how SYG affects that

If a reasonable person would conclude the stalker was at risk of being killed or suffering severe bodily harm, then normal self defense law applies, right?

[Spazito]

14. Hmmm, I need some clarity here...

Are you suggesting the stalker would be entitled to a self-defense claim?

[Recursion]

15. Anyone who reasonably fears death or serious bodily harm can defend himself or herself, I think

(That's just my factual understanding of the law, SYG aside.)

People get off on self-defense for shooting cops serving no-knock warrants.

[Spazito]

17. By the very act of stalking...

it is an aggressive act so the person being stalked is entitled to claim self-defense as opposed to the stalker who, by the very act of stalking, is committing an illegal act.

[Recursion]

18. And they can be tried and found guilty of stalking

The right to defend one's life is pretty much as absolute as rights get, is my understanding.

[Spazito]

19. No, self defense cannot be a valid claim if the defendent was committing...

an unlawful act (stalking) and the person being stalked defends themselves. This applies outside of Florida it seems, given the Zimmerman case, hence the OP which makes the point very powerfully.

[Pelican]

22. So...

If the person is committing an illegal act then the victim is justified in using force?

[Spazito]

23. Yes, depending on the circumstance, but you know that already...

don't you.

[Pelican]

24. I was thinking about that teenager in Florida...

... who had broken into the homeowners property at 2 am.

He initiated the contact and he was committing a crime. Just wondering if the standard help or if "that's different"

[Spazito]

25. Again, it depends on the circumstance, use of force does not automatically equate to...

use of lethal force except in Florida of course.

[7962]

30. And if I was on a jury, I would make the same decision

There is no excuse for no knock searches. There is not going to be enough time for evidence to be destroyed in the seconds it takes to serve notice at the door.
where I live there is a guy on trial for shooting and killing a cop during a no-knock. He was a drug dealer, but how did he KNOW they were cops coming in the door? Seems to me if I was a cop Id want to get rid of these as a safety measure.

[NutmegYankee]

9. In Sanford, FL, Yes. In other places, No.

[Politicub]

11. Sad that hat's the logic used in the Zimmerman case

Our society is sick with guns.

[Recursion]

12. Would a reasonable person conclude he was at risk of death from your daughter?

If so, then yes. That's not really even a stand your ground issue.

[niyad]

20. wow--all that concern for the stalker''s rights--just. . .wow. would be nice if you could show an

equal amount of concern for the the rights of the stalker's victim.

[sheshe2]

27. +1!

Thanks niyad.

[Trajan]

28. Figures ..

Signed,
NOT a fan ..

[Courtesy Flush]

34. So any serial killer whose victim puts up a fight

Can use that as his defense?

A year ago we had a local murder case in which a college girl was stalked and killed. The killer got pretty well scratched up by the girl, and she even cut him with a knife. You're saying he's innocent?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57467526-504083/michaela-mickey-shunick-arrest-for-murder-of-missing-la-student/

[delrem]

35. What if, along with pepper spray, she carried a small purse-knife?

Perhaps she slashed the fucker a couple of times before he shot her in the head. Perhaps a lot of things, and the "stand your ground" gets progressively perverted, turned on its head.

You are very ready to say that according as your notion of "reasonable" the stalker, the predator, is entitled to murder the victim under certain circumstances, namely where the victim has a slim chance of fighting back.

Perhaps the "stand your ground" law gets progressively perverted because it already contains the seed of perversion, and perverts see that and water and nurture it.

[niyad]

42. your tender loving concern for the stalker is actually despicable.

[Phillyindy]

21. Oh that's nothing....imagine this...

...Let's say you want to kill your ex-wife. No problem, have her meet you somewhere when no one else is around, and fucking just shoot her. Then plant a knife in her hand...maybe give yourself a little gash for good measure. In places like Florida...MAKE NO MISTAKE....the burden is on the state to PROVE she didn't try to stab you.


Murica'

[7962]

32. True, but it seems as though those types always fall apart

I've seen so many cases in the news where I couldnt figure out how the cops knew the shooter was lying and ended up proving it. In your scenario, it would probably be the faked wound. It would probably be found that the woman couldnt have made it with the proper hand, or the angle or direction, etc.
Look at that cop up north, he's convicted and they never even found a body.

[Phillyindy]

46. Ok, so....

...no wound. Just plant a knife in her hand after. I mean, unless I'm mistaken, in places like Fla you are presumed innocent of murder when you claim self defense, and the state must prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that it was not self defense....which if there are no witnesses, it impossible.

[aikoaiko]

26. Probably not.

[Courtesy Flush]

31. The obvious answer...

Your daughter should have carried a gun!

[davidn3600]

33. That's not the justification that Zimmerman used...

...he claims Trayvon was on top of him, banging his head on concrete, and told Zimmerman "you are going to die tonight."

A woman kneeing a man in the crotch is not likely to be considered by a jury to cause a person to reasonably fear for their life.

So the analogy is not really a good one.

[sheshe2]

36. Actually it is.

Both are being followed in a car (and yes one is a scenario). The stalker gets out of their car and follows. In Zimmies case he was told by police to stay put. Nope not good enough for him. He stalked the child because he wanted to. He had the gun and he was the "Man"!

Well I for one, male or female would have been terrified of being stalked. The child like the woman defended themselves, from an assailant. People do not have a right to defend themselves?

As for Zimmie. He claims? Really? He went after Trayvon with intent. If he meant no harm he would have stayed in his damn car and let the police handle it. He did not.

The analogy stands!

[davidn3600]

38. Vast majority of women are not going to confront someone who is following them

They would call police, scream for help, or run to shelter. They would not attack unless she is cornered.

[treestar]

51. You are using sex based stereotypes

Those are not evidence.

[YarnAddict]

41. Corrections:

Z was not told by police to stay put. A non-emergency dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." That dispatcher testified that they had not authority to order anyone to do anything.

When the dispatcher said that, Z replied, "Okay," which would indicate that he actually was complying with the suggestion.

At that point, Z was NOT an "assailant," that Trayvon needed to defend himself against. In fact, he became the assailant.

I firmly believe that this tragedy could have been completely avoided, had Z stayed in his truck in the first place, and that he certainly should have. But, rewriting the facts to fit the scenario we would all like it to be, is just intellectually dishonest.

[niyad]

43. trayvon became the assailant when, exactly? do you actually believe that nonsense about

him attacking zimmy and beating his head into the cement? seriously? please explain, then, why there was NO zimmy dna or blood on trayvon, et., etc. nice try yourself.

[YarnAddict]

44. Well,

an eyewitness actually SAW Trayvon on top, making "up and down motions" which could have been blows, Dr. Demaio testified as to the position of the gun and the trajectory of the shot, indicating that Trayvon was on top, the prosecution even acknowledged that Trayvon was on top, . . .

As for the lack of DNA and blood, the CSI people tetified that lack of such didn't mean anything.

These are all things that were testified by witnesses, called by both the prosecution and the defense at the actual trial.

How much more evidence do you need?

[niyad]

45. quite a bit, actually. zimmy was told to stay out of it, he did not. HE was the assailant, plain

and simple. and, as I wrote in a thread a while back, I am looking at a scar on my knee from tripping on the sidewalk months ago, nothing major, was even wearing slacks. simple fall, nothing major, one fall. so, zimmy's head was REPEATEDLY smashed into the cement, and there are no lasting marks? seriously?

you, of course, are free to believe whatever you wish. zimmy started this whole tragedy, HE ALONE is responsible, no matter how people try to turn it.

[YarnAddict]

49. Yes, Zman started it by following,

but he was NOT an assailant, as defined:

as·sail·ant [uh-sey-luhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who attacks.
adjective
2.
Archaic. assailing; attacking; hostile.
Origin:
1525–35; < Middle French assaillant. See assail, -ant

attack:

at·tack [uh-tak] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3.
to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4.
to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5.
to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.

Furthermore, he was NOT "told to stay out of it." That's quite a bit different from "We don't need you to do that," which the dispatcher (not cop) was recorded as having said.

All the evidence pointed to the fact that Trayvon turned back, attacked Zman, was beating him, and that Zman shot him. If there was credible evidence of any other alternative scenario, it didn't come out at the trial.

The only question is, whether or not Trayvon was beating him badly enough that Zman thought he was going to die. We may not think so, but apparently Zman did. Or, at least that's what the jury believed.

[niyad]

52. it is evident that you are doing everything in your power to excuse this murdering bastard.

you can keep doing it as long as you like, it isn't going to change the fact that george zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent kid, no matter what the jury said.

[YarnAddict]

55. I don't know why you think I'm trying to excuse him

I am explaining some facts to you, and why the jury came to the verdict that they did.

[niyad]

60. why do I think so--your own words:

At that point, Z was NOT an "assailant," that Trayvon needed to defend himself against. In fact, HE (trayvon) became the assailant.

pretty damn clear, in your own words.

and, you do not need to explain anything to me, I am perfectly capable of understanding exactly what went on, without the twistings and turnings of those intent on defending that violent,abusive, murdering wannabe george zimmerman.

[YarnAddict]

61. Well then, what evidence is there

that Zman was an "assailant?" And why do YOU think the jury came to the decision they did?

[NealK]

62. +1

[notadmblnd]

53. Who is he in the following comment?

"At that point, Z was NOT an "assailant," that Trayvon needed to defend himself against. In fact, he became the assailant."


When the non emergency dispatcher told GZ that "we don't need you to do that", GZ was already or of his truck following TM.

The "we don't need you to do that" comment was in response to GZ's answer to the dispatcher's previous question which was "are you following him?"

[YarnAddict]

54. "He"

is Trayvon. Even the prosecution came around to believing that Trayvon was on top.

In fact, when I saw the mannequin the prosecutors were using it was obvious to me that it had been intended to represent Trayvon, by its size and shape. But, when the prosecutor got on top of it, it looked like they had changed the entire theory of the case, and instead it was used to represented Z.

After the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" Zman responded, "Okay" indicating that he was acknowledging. Did he stop following at that point? I don't know, but I think the jury believed that he did.

[notadmblnd]

56. We do know that GZ was out of his vehicle and was stalking TM

When the dispatcher told GZ that they did not need GZ to follow TM. GZ acknowledged the dispatcher's comment but there is no evidence that GZ followed the dispatchers suggestion.

In fact, by GZ's own admission (found in his re-enactment video), GZ continued on in the direction of the front of the residences- as GZ claimed he was looking for house numbers. GZ also acknowleged in that video that he tripped or fell, not that TM took him down to the ground and began beating him.

What I don't understand, is why TM would yell "Get off me!" as RJ testified, if TM was the one attacking GZ while still being on his phone and having skittles in his hand.

I mean, if I were going to attack someone, I would end my call and put what I had in my hands down first.

[YarnAddict]

57. There is a lot we'll never know.

We only have Zman's story, and the evidence presented in court. There are gaps, there are inconsistancies, and a lot of questions.

Didn't Trayvon tell Rachel that he had reached Brandi's house? If so, why was his body found so far away from it? What happened during that infamous four minutes? Many, many other questions, as well.

A year ago, we all thought there should be a thorough investigation, and a trial. Well, I don't know how thorough the investigation was, but there was an arrest, and a trial. Don't know if the prosecution ever really had enough evidence to bring a case to trial, and actually hope to win, but at least there was a trial.

I think it was a fair trial. The judge actually seemed to be a bit biased in favor of the prosecution.

There are laws that should be changed. SYG seems to give justification for people to be bullies. (Although, I don't know how much SYG had to do with this case.)

[notadmblnd]

58. Well since the investigation did not begin until 44 days after GZ murdered TM

I can't see how it could have been very through.

How many details of an event can people remember after 44 days? As far as the trial went, the prosecution IMO did a very poor job of pointing out inconsistencies in GZ's story. I do know that they did not want to prosecute to begin with and that only after the DOJ got involved did any authority in the city of Sanford Fla take any action.

[delrem]

37. No.

First, it wasn't an "analogy", it was a simile, and a particularly effective one at that. Thanks sheshe2.
The simile is perfect.

[niyad]

47. analogy and simile

im·i·le
[sim-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.” Compare metaphor.
2.
an instance of such a figure of speech or a use of words exemplifying it.


a·nal·o·gy
[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

[YarnAddict]

39. I would prefer

that she hurry home, then lock the door and call the police. That is, if she were as close to home as Trayvon was.

[99Forever]

40. In FloriDUH..

... that is "The Law."

And apparently 30some other states too.

Ain't the NRA and the fucking gunfreakos grand?

[Vattel]

48. Shooting her would be unjustified, but is this story analogous to the Zimmerman case?

In the story the man chases down my fleeing daughter. In the Zimmerman case, it is not clear at all whether Zimmerman chased down Martin, or Martin approached Zimmerman as Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle, or the two crossed paths in some other way.

In the story, my daughter merely knees or pepper sprays or trips the man. In the Zimmerman case, it is not clear how many times Martin hit Zimmerman, or whether he tried to smash Zimmerman's head into the concrete as Zimmerman yelled for help, or whether he reached for Zimmerman's gun.

[treestar]

50. And the man has stated already to police that he does not think she should get away!

Wannabe cop, thought he had the right to shoot someone who would not "stop" for him.

[Scurrilous]

59. K & R

[Rex]

63. YEP.

And people LOVED the idea!