Why hasn't Zimmerman been arrested?

then tell us, what do you want for Zimmerman if not a conviction....

 

Whoa whoa whoa...there's an eye witness that saw Trayvon attack George Zimmerman?????

NO THERE IS NOT...

why are you lying?

 

reallY????? lol

 

No one saw Trayvon initiate any confrontation...what witnesses saw was a fight in progress...no one saw anyone initiate anything either way...

so again...why are you lying?

 

I think the incident should be investigated carefully, and if there is any basis for charging him he should be.

And as this case proves, SYG is a bad law and should be repealed.

 

I haven't seen reference to a witness that says Martin attacked Zimmerman, except for Zimmerman's family.

Which witness said that?

 

Actually, you did NOT cite the full pertinent text of such, and the Florida statute is contained in the Wiki article.

It does NOT reinforce what your said:


Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[18]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(ie: kidnapping, unlawful restraint, aggravated assault, etc., etc..)

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

Get a grip. They don't have enough evidence for an arrest. What do you call taking him to the police station? Chopped liver?

 

as far as I know they are under severe scrutiny right now .

that same law also allows for people to defend themselves . It's a fair Law ..

,

they will , once the investigation has ascertained the facts ..

that remains to be seen , one can only hope that rational minds prevail .

 

yawn.... do you guys even read the headlines? This is OLD news

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...aims-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman

 

That part I cited.

This section is irrelevant. This is not a home invasion situation.

This section talks about the effect of the act (provides immunity from prosecution) and not the circumstances of how it applies.

I hadn't seen that section so I was wrong to say I had quoted the pertinent parts of the law. It is pertinent to the application, but maybe not in practical terms.

It provides that the SYG rule does not apply if you "provoked" the use of force (whatever the hell that means), unless the force used against you "reasonably believe" great bodily harm is imminent and you cannot escape, or you withdraw and the assailant resumes force, in which case it is OK to use lethal force even if you did provoke the fight.

But does it make a difference? So, paraphrasing, the law says if you don't provoke the fight you can stand your ground and shoot someone, but if you do provoke the fight, you can't shoot if you can escape.

That does provide some more rational for the law, because you can't just go up and provoke a fight and if someone swings at you shoot them.

But practically speaking, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. In these situation where the guy who is shot is dead, it's likely to be very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that the killer did not "provoke" the fight, since the other guy is dead, and we are back to square one.

 

You'd rather us retreat while somebody steals everything we have and then go beg the "authorities" to find and prosecute the perp. Then be told that we can't recover most of what they took because we didn't put identifying numbers on everything we have the day we buy it. So posession is 9/10 of the law.

Screw that. I say shoot people who you find with your stuff and leave the bodies for law enforcement to clean up afterwards.

 

I disagree even most of the points the defender of Zimmerman bring up are
just the debating between voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. The self defense issue in my mind would might make it manslaughter.
The stand your ground law is so a victim of a crime can defend themselves with no charges being filed. The police tried I believe to use the law as a excuse but even Jeb Bush has said it was not the case. If anything they need to make clear it does not allow people to act as law enforcement. Especially if there is not a felony in progress. I do not support Zimmerman and I hope the family receives justice. It will not bring back their child but it is the best we can offer them.

 

You always had the right to defend yourself.

The difference is before, unless you were in your own house, you had the obligation to avoid and retreat before using deadly force.

If that was the law, the prosecution could make a case, because the facts certainly seem to suggest that Zimmerman did not try to avoid and retreat from the situation.

 

except SYG doesn't apply.... the lawyer of Zimmerman even said, IF this goes to court, he will defend his client using the self-defense law, not SYG

http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/

so again, youre agenda driven mind has once again, failed to grasp understanding what this case is even about.


Please pay attention.... this is not public education, we can't continually slow the class down for the slowest student when they refuse to pay attention

 

which is why it's not about SYG like you want to believe.... lol

 

Again, the difference is that before the SYG rule, you had the obligation to avoid or retreat from the situation without using deadly force. Now you don't have to.

I don't understand how someone can say it does not apply in this case. The SYG rule makes it a much tougher case on the prosecution, because they cannot prove that Zimmerman could have avoided or retreated from the situation without using lethal force. That makes it a much tougher case for the prosecution.

 

Which is why its completely about SYG ....lol

 

Why not? Simple answer is there has not been enough evidence to charge him yet. Or the cops want to make an air tight case so this guy can't get off like Kasey Anthony. But guess what, these black malitias and nbp and the rest of the liberal media biased coverage is going to give a lawyer a great chance to get him off on a mistrial before it even begins. These people are making it to where his lawyer can claim he will never be able to have a fair trial.

Btw, I know you advocate for it if it was a black man on trial instead of a Latino, but in America, we are "innocent until PROVEN guilty" in a court of law.

 

You don't know if Zimmerman tried to retreat or not before Trayvon started the physical altercation. And no one knows who touched who first.

 

Self defense is a complete defense to murder but it could be determined to be imperfect self defense which could be determined to be manslaughter.

 

I agree that is what he said, but it makes no sense to me. The statute (post #57) explicitly is not limited to home invasion. Furthermore, in traditional self-defense, the issue is not simply whether the amount of force use was justified but also whether you could have retreated or avoided the situation without any use of lethal force.

I disagree I've failed to grasp it. My agenda is to not see people getting off for unnecessarily killing innocent people.

GFY

 

you keep focusing on that then.... that'll work out well, I'm sure.

 

That is true, we don't.

We do know, however, no that Zimmerman left his truck where he made the 911 call by the clubhouse and moved to the place where the altercation and shooting occurred, which doesn't suggest to me he was trying to avoid a confrontation.

 

I've carried a gun every day of my life , since 1965 , so I'm a staunch supporter of the 'Castle Doctrine' and the right to defend ones self , no matter where one may be at the time , grocery store , gas station , whatever , the Law is a fair Law , it allows for the self defense of law abiding citizens faced with a life & death circumstance . .

However , as in any such circumstance , people sometimes make mistakes ..