Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

Burglars?

Was Martin burglarizing someone?

 

[WildCat]

Was Martin burglarizing someone?

What do you think he meant? That black people were getting away with being black?

 

[sadhatter]

Would a reasonable response to 'b' be, "none of your business."?

If one wanted to escalate the conflict, sure.

I just don't get the "I refuse to give information to anyone." line of logic. Either A) you can simply say the truth, "Coming back from a snack run.". Which is either going to satisfy the person, or cause the person to validate your claim. Or B) Refuse to tell them anything, which is surely going to escalate the issue with this knob.

Sure, you are well within your rights to say none of your business, but what good is that going to do? You don't like the fact that the man wants to hassle you, so your best recourse is to do the one thing that is going to extend the hassle? By the very action of hassling you, the person has branded themselves a knob, so you know that the situation isn't going to get any more pleasant by reacting immediately in a similar manner.

And above and beyond that, if the guy is such a high caliber of knob that he is actually going to want to validate the fact that you lived there, sure let him, then when you open your door, shut it in his face. If he tries to go any further with it, you are now in your own home, with all of the legal protections that incurs.

Come on people, i am all about not letting people like this have power, but in the same sense, there are easier ways to put the brakes on their knob like tendencies than engaging them in the exact kind of confrontation they want. Instead of going with the predictable "None of your business." and getting more hassle, use a bit of strategy, outsmart the idiot, don't engage him in the exact fashion he wants.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This.

At them moment, from what I have seen, one could make plausible hypotheticals that exonerated either of the individuals involved.

Depends on the law. Chasing someone and continuing the confrontation would invalidate a self defense claim in many states. Florida removed mandates for people to try to avoid conflict and still claim self defense.

 

[sadhatter]

What do you think he meant? That black people were getting away with being black?

The guy, is just an archetypal example of the wannabe cop. And for my money probably just likes getting into confrontations, especially with folks he can get away with screwing with. ( one does not live in a gated community, let alone become a self appointed captain of the neighborhood watch, without a distinct dislike for people who he feels are in a lower social strata. )

Racist? Maybe, who knows, but a dick? Definitely, he saw a kid, wanted to hassle him, got the bad end of the physical conflict, and legally did something he obviously really wanted to do, use his gun on another human being. I mean let's face facts here, if he wanted to just stop the conflict, simply shooting the gun in the air in a gated community would more than likely bring everyone out in short order, but he didn't, he chose to shoot the person, because by his actions, that is the situation he wanted to set up.

 

[crimresearch]

Depends on the law. Chasing someone and continuing the confrontation would invalidate a self defense claim in many states. Florida removed mandates for people to try to avoid conflict and still claim self defense.

Removed some mandates in some situations.

This one as described so far doesn't look like a presumptive case.

I'd like to find out more on why the media is using the term 'self appointed neighborhood watch captain'.
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-...nable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html

Sanford Police Chief Billy Lee said there is no evidence to dispute self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman's assertion that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin out of self-defense.

Whatever the police have that *bolsters* the claim of self defense, the fact that they are still refusing to release it after the investigation is closed, looks odd at best.

 

[Checkmite]

The assumption that Zimmerman must have been white has unfortunate implications.

Firstly, the fact that he was white was explicitly mentioned in news reports; secondly, a white Hispanic individual is still white. Caucasian is Caucasian.

 

[Giz]

And reasonable actions when a crazy man with a gun starts chasing you on your way home from a snack run?

That might have happened, sure. Or it might have gone down a different way. To be so sure at this stage means that you are indulging your prejudices rather than analyzing the evidence.

 

[Checkmite]

What do you think he meant? That black people were getting away with being black?

Why is that so outrageous? Considering that Martin wasn't doing anything illegal whatsoever, I honestly have no idea what he meant.

 

[Giz]

Whatever the police have that *bolsters* the claim of self defense, the fact that they are still refusing to release it after the investigation is closed, looks odd at best.

Hopefully it will all become public domain when the family sues (note: it should be public domain beforehand... but I guess it might take legal action to get that to happen).

 

[Giz]

Why is that so outrageous? Considering that Martin wasn't doing anything illegal whatsoever, I honestly have no idea what he meant.

Does your neighborhood have a neighborhood watch? What does it do? Ours (old ladies mostly) keep an eye on strangers wandering around the neighborhood. How else do they work?

 

[ponderingturtle]

And Martin could have continued to his house instead of confronting Zimmerman, yet I don't see you claiming that Martin escalated the situation.

We need more details.

If he was running away as in the story Dancing David quoted what is your evidence that he was not running home?

 

[Checkmite]

Does your neighborhood have a neighborhood watch? What does it do? Ours (old ladies mostly) keep an eye on strangers wandering around the neighborhood. How else do they work?

In one place at least, they seem to work by detaining and questioning people who walk with their hood up in the rain. Because otherwise "these [people who wear hoods while walking in the rain] always get away with it".

 

[Checkmite]

I'd like to find out more on why the media is using the term 'self appointed neighborhood watch captain'.
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-...nable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html

So far as I know, the "neighborhood watch" is simply a collective term for residents who look for suspicious activity and report it to the police. Aside from perhaps a particular officer assigned to a particular neighborhood, (much like with Skywarn) among residents there's no formal "organization", much less a rank structure...unless perhaps (like with Skywarn in some cases) this fellow is a whacker and created one, in which case "self-appointed" seems accurate enough.

 

[Giz]

If he was running away as in the story Dancing David quoted what is your evidence that he was not running home?

Of course! Everyone knows that the shortest distance between two points is to stop and punch the snot out of the neighborhood watch.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

There are no absolutes in such things... except this one.

I'm not sure what you mean there. In South Carolina the law is very specific about when you may use lethal force. Basically you may do so to protect yourself if you are innocent of wrongdoing or to protect another if they are also innocent of wrongdoing. If you are standing in a public place where you have every right to be and not violating any other law you may defend yourself with lethal force. Any violation of the law is sufficient to invalidate this right. If you are drunk in public you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. If you are carrying a concealed weapon without a permit you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. If you are in the process of buying a stolen car stereo you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. The law even specifically states that when two people are engaged in mutual battery (a fist fight for example) neither is considered innocent of wrongdoing and neither may use lethal force.

If you are involved in mutual battery and your opponent has you down and is kicking you in the head, you will do what you have to do. You can also expect to be charged. The police and the prosecutor will look at it and say you were not innocent of wrongdoing. Ultimately, your fate will be decided by a jury.

If you come upon a large man beating a smaller woman in the street can you use lethal force against him? Only if she is also innocent of wrongdoing. If it turns out that she attacked him because he has a hickey on his neck that she didn't put there, she is not innocent of wrongdoing. If they are both drunk in public then she is not innocent of wrongdoing. If you don't know for certain that she is innocent of wrongdoing then you take a big gamble using lethal force against the man. You might find yourself in front of a jury. Your best course of action is to call the police.

 

[Checkmite]

Q: If a neighborhood watch shoots all the residents it's supposed to be protecting to death, who will be left to watch the neighborhood?

 

[LTC8K6]

Firstly, the fact that he was white was explicitly mentioned in news reports; secondly, a white Hispanic individual is still white. Caucasian is Caucasian.

Except that a "black/latino divide" seems to be a fairly well known problem. Conflict there is a well known thing in communities with populations of both.

"White" is not the same as "Hispanic" at all in the real world.

I would guess that the young black man was possibly a little more worried about a latino man following him, than he would have been a "white guy".

Mostly speculation of course, pending more, and more accurate, info.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not sure what you mean there. In South Carolina the law is very specific about when you may use lethal force. Basically you may do so to protect yourself if you are innocent of wrongdoing or to protect another if they are also innocent of wrongdoing. If you are standing in a public place where you have every right to be and not violating any other law you may defend yourself with lethal force. Any violation of the law is sufficient to invalidate this right. If you are drunk in public you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. If you are carrying a concealed weapon without a permit you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. If you are in the process of buying a stolen car stereo you are not innocent of wrongdoing and may not use lethal force. The law even specifically states that when two people are engaged in mutual battery (a fist fight for example) neither is considered innocent of wrongdoing and neither may use lethal force.

If you are involved in mutual battery and your opponent has you down and is kicking you in the head, you will do what you have to do. You can also expect to be charged. The police and the prosecutor will look at it and say you were not innocent of wrongdoing. Ultimately, your fate will be decided by a jury.

If you come upon a large man beating a smaller woman in the street can you use lethal force against him? Only if she is also innocent of wrongdoing. If it turns out that she attacked him because he has a hickey on his neck that she didn't put there, she is not innocent of wrongdoing. If they are both drunk in public then she is not innocent of wrongdoing. If you don't know for certain that she is innocent of wrongdoing then you take a big gamble using lethal force against the man. You might find yourself in front of a jury. Your best course of action is to call the police.

The problem is proclaiming in advance what can and can not be a crime *in all cases*.

A statement like "...when two people are engaged in mutual battery (a fist fight for example) neither is considered innocent of wrongdoing and neither may use lethal force is not 100% absolute in every possible case, there could be exceptions.
The notion that a woman can legally be beaten to death if she's been drinking doesn't even come close to accurately representing the reality.

The law is an adversarial system in the US, which is why the most accurate legal advice is often 'It depends on the circumstances'.
And the most useful assessment of the Florida situation is 'it could be a crime', or 'it could be self defense'.

 

[WildCat]

Why is that so outrageous? Considering that Martin wasn't doing anything illegal whatsoever, I honestly have no idea what he meant.

It only makes sense if he thought the "it" was a criminal activity (real or imagined), it makes no sense if the "it" was being black as you are apparently claiming.