The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[HQWest]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Cynically, I'd say that the cops believed the white man's claims of self-defense against a young black man, and without further evidence, there wasn't much of a case.

I'd say that after reviewing the evidence I've seen put forward by folks who are obviously pretty biased against Zimmerman, assuming those facts to be true and that there is nothing out there to mitigate them, it doesn't look great for him, although, he could still put on a reasonable enough criminal defense to get acquitted.

In the initial accounts - Zimmerman claimed he was at his truck in the street, and the young man attacked him. Later reports -witnesses said Zimmerman was inside the house and saw the young man outside and came out with his weapon. The 911 call confirms the second report.

To make the claim of self-defense (even in Texas), Zimmerman would have to have reasonable fear for his safety - which would mean the young man had to be coming into his house or have a weapon on Zimmerman's property (not on the street.) Clearly, that is not the case here, and he should be charged.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by HQWest

In the initial accounts - Zimmerman claimed he was at his truck in the street, and the young man attacked him. Later reports -witnesses said Zimmerman was inside the house and saw the young man outside and came out with his weapon. The 911 call confirms the second report.

To make the claim of self-defense (even in Texas), Zimmerman would have to have reasonable fear for his safety - which would mean the young man had to be coming into his house or have a weapon on Zimmerman's property (not on the street.) Clearly, that is not the case here, and he should be charged.

From my limited knowledge of the Florida self-defense law, your interpretation isn't accurate. There is no duty to retreat and force can be met with force anywhere. Whether Zimmerman was on the street or in his house is irrelevant under the Florida law. It's just whether he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm caused by Martin.

Bad laws produce bad results.

[HQWest]

Originally Posted by Kevin

From my limited knowledge of the Florida self-defense law, your interpretation isn't accurate. There is no duty to retreat and force can be met with force anywhere. Whether Zimmerman was on the street or in his house is irrelevant under the Florida law. It's just whether he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm caused by Martin.

Bad laws produce bad results.

This is an example of another case like this. (I couldn't find the news article.) Yoshihiro Hattori was a Japanese exchange student that went to the wrong house for a party. The home owner became upset because the young man rang his doorbell several times and was speaking (to him) unintelligibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
In that case, unfortunately, the jury ruled that it was self-defense that the homeowner had a reasonable fear of this student that he believed to be drunk or high.

This is the statute in the Florida law that they are talking about http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

It is clear from this that (in Florida) if someone is entering your property or dwelling you have the right to use deadly force if you feel threatened (unless they are your child, dependent, or leasee). This law goes on to include being at your vehicle - that you have the right to defend yourself and your vehicle. In the initial statement - Zimmerman said he was at his vehicle, but the other report said he was inside the house. If the later reports were that he came out of his house and into the street to confront Martin, then I think they may be able to make a case against Zimmerman.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by HQWest

In the initial accounts - Zimmerman claimed he was at his truck in the street, and the young man attacked him. Later reports -witnesses said Zimmerman was inside the house and saw the young man outside and came out with his weapon. The 911 call confirms the second report.

To make the claim of self-defense (even in Texas), Zimmerman would have to have reasonable fear for his safety - which would mean the young man had to be coming into his house or have a weapon on Zimmerman's property (not on the street.) Clearly, that is not the case here, and he should be charged.

The kid was on his cellphone with a female friend. He said that a strange man was following him. Zimmerman hunted this kid down and shot him. He's a dangerous nut, maybe a racist, and needs to be put away.

More here: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/feds-fla-probe-teen-s-shooting-by-watch-captain-1.3613683