Zimmerman Martin Case

F

farrokhb

Member
It means what it states the police have no duty to protect you but do the best they can.

It still falls to the individual to be their own first responder in the US anyway.
 
W

whocj78

New member
The motto is one thing and their legal duty is something else.

I believe they for the most part will always do the best they can and the department has policies to do that.

You are responsible to be the first responder for yourself and family and the police will get there the best they can.

Different courts have all ruled the same the police have no duty of individual protect as I quoted.
 
C

CollegeGuy

New member
I was just reading on this site:

http://www.copblock.org/27067/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/

About a case where a man was being attacked and the 'cops' stood by and watched. I couldn't believe it.

I dont know if what the website reports is true (as often people with an agenda leave certain details out)

Is it true that this happend??



Its quite disturbing if so.
 
R

ReligionKillst

New member
Surely on the basis that a person is innocent until proven guilty, he has been found innocent. Innocence is the default assumption and is maintained until guilt is proven.
 
R

RazorKissedWrists

New member
Since you know the truth then, what is it? Obviously the media have you the entire unbiased and factual truth and access to the case files. Oh wait, they didn't.



Perhaps. If they caught Martin (who wasn't local). And perhaps the rush to prosecute could be a contributing factor in why Zimmerman was found not guilty. Considering FL literally put two guilty decisions on the table for the jury to choose, the fact that he was found not guilty is compelling. OJ Simpson got off too so it's hardly racism that got him free. A jury decided that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story. He can't ever be criminally charged for anything related to the incident again.
 
D

deathbychorusandverse

New member
Where did I say I knew what happened? My point was that no one knows what happened that night apart from Zimmerman and we are only every going to hear his version of events which may or may not be true. That does not make his version of the events the 'facts'.



He could be charged in Federal court under a hate crime statute, but that seems unlikely since it would be hard to prove it was a hate crime and it has already been shown to be extremely difficult to get a murder/manslaughter charge to stick.

Civil court is another matter entirely.
 
S

sylviad

New member
Whatever did occur, his testimony, the witness who saw Martin assaulting Zimmerman, and the physical evidence seemed to support what Zimmerman said. A person is allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves if they believe at the time that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Zimmerman thought he was in imminent danger, drew his firearm, and during the struggle Martin was shot. Nothing else he did up to that point was technically illegal otherwise.



Federal charges would essentially be double jeopardy so I doubt that'll happen. Considering the trademarking of Trayvon's name by the family, they're seeing dollar signs now and a civil case will naturally follow as it'll be easy to win.
 
O

oldschoolelf

New member
Was there a witness who was able to identify Martin as the attacker? I thought that they basically went witness for witness on slightly dubious accounts.

The key thing we will never know is who started the confrontation. Because if it was Zimmerman, then his SYG defence falls away.


It's not just about money, it's about getting some kind of justice. If they can't see Zimmerman in jail, they can at least see him destitute.
 
R

Rawre

Member
why wouldn't you in a high-profile case like this? they're actually being smart about it and keeping trayvon from being pimped, post mortem.
 
E

Eclair:lP

New member
Well, at least you can run away from a knife. And tbh, knives or any kind of weapon should be illegal to have on you outside of your own house or property.

At least that way, when someone does have a weapon on them and they kill someone with it, they can be sure as hell they won't get away with it unless they never get caught.

Right now, it's anyone's guess if Zimmerman didn't just plan the whole thing out and staged every single step to get away with shooting someone to death. The fact this is even possible makes it ridiculous.

I'm very much against weapons of any kind and obviously guns get all of my attention. I just don't understand why civilians should be able to walk around with weapons so lethal, that it only takes the push of a button to kill someone. If I were to approve of gun use in any way, it would be when someone is fending off more than 3 people.
 
G

geonwoo0701

Member
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans-acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629




http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/15/zimmermans-prosecutors-did-not-think-the
 
T

TheLink

Member
Legally you already cannot use a deceased person's image without permission of the family in most states as it is. They could sue and win against anyone with the laws as they are already.
 
Top