Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

It would. What wouldn't be acceptable is attacking the guy who asked that. But then... the kid was in a gang and had been kicked out of school... so he obviously had a habit of making antisocial decisions...

Source, data?

 

[WildCat]

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

That phrase does not appear at all in the story DD quoted, nor do words to that effect.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong story?

 

[Moss]

Source, data?

I second that question. Because both google and duck duck go fail to come up with any information on possible gang connections and being kicked out of school. The only site I did find the connection was that post in this thread.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

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.

I must say, that's a damned funny definition of escalate....

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.

Perhaps that's how you, personally, would handle such a situation, but it certainly isn't a normal reaction to provocation. Having some stranger come up and give you grief will usually cause fear and/or anger. Rationality goes out the window in such cases. If someone came and started bugging me about my being in a public place, I guarantee that I would tell them to go stuff themselves in the most graphic terms I could think of...and that is not escalation, except by your definition.

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.

Ah, yes, and you'd turn your back on such a knob? That would be injudicious, unless you have some good reason to believe that it would be safe, and I think that someone hassling you without just cause is anything but that.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "easier". It takes considerably more effort to contain your first reaction, stop, reflect, and come up with a plausible alternative...all while some loon is in your face, and no guarantee that anything you say or do will satisfy said knob.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

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

That's what laws do. "It shall be illegal to drive more than 35 mph on city streets." If you are charged with violating the law you can argue the specifics of your case in court, but laws are usually written so as to be absolute.

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.

And a jury will decide if your exception is justified, but the law is written to be absolute.

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.

That's not even close to accurately depicting what I said. If the man beats her to death he will be charged. I was talking about an innocent by-stander who happens to stumble upon the fighting couple. The by-stander may not use lethal force against the man if the woman is not innocent of wrongdoing. Since the by-stander may not know if she is innocent, he should not use lethal force against the man.

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'.

That's for a jury to decide. The decision to charge is based upon the law which is written to be absolute.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

I wasn't asking originally what "it" was; I asked who "they" ("these ***holes" according to some accounts) were.

 

[WildCat]

I wasn't asking originally what "it" was; I asked who "they" ("these ***holes" according to some accounts) were.

People committing crimes.

Again, it makes no sense if you think "these ********" refers to blacks getting away with being black. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[sadhatter]

I must say, that's a damned funny definition of escalate....



Perhaps that's how you, personally, would handle such a situation, but it certainly isn't a normal reaction to provocation. Having some stranger come up and give you grief will usually cause fear and/or anger. Rationality goes out the window in such cases. If someone came and started bugging me about my being in a public place, I guarantee that I would tell them to go stuff themselves in the most graphic terms I could think of...and that is not escalation, except by your definition.




Ah, yes, and you'd turn your back on such a knob? That would be injudicious, unless you have some good reason to believe that it would be safe, and I think that someone hassling you without just cause is anything but that.



I'm not sure what you mean by "easier". It takes considerably more effort to contain your first reaction, stop, reflect, and come up with a plausible alternative...all while some loon is in your face, and no guarantee that anything you say or do will satisfy said knob.

Your entire point seems to boil down to " But i am pissed, i can't just not be pissed, that takes so much effort." , and really that is a horribly poor line of logic, and you then take the step of saying this would cause you fear, not only that, but enough fear that you wouldn't trust this person for the amount of time it takes to walk to your door and close it.

I have to say, that sounds very paranoid, and that is coming from a guy that does walk around armed, on a constant basis. Letting your emotions run your life, let alone feeling justified in this, is how crap like this happens. If the first gent were to simply say to himself "I'll just give the baby his bottle and tell him what i am up to, and if he wants to go further, i'll just outsmart him." he'd be alive today. The knob in question wasn't a sociopath, just a jerk with the same fantasy most jerks have, being dirty harry.

And escalate is a perfectly appropriate word, you know how this person is going to react, and that by giving your answer that you admit is simply emotion fueled, it is going to simply cause him to act more like a knob , than by relating very simple information, that is not going to harm you. He isn't asking for a credit card number, or who you were banging, hell, you don't even have to tell the guy the truth, just make some crap up as to where you went.

Literally the only option that is guaranteed to make the situation more of a confrontation, is the emotion fueled snark of " None of your business." indeed it is none of his business, so lie. If your really that scared of telling someone you went on a snack run , it is the easiest way to not give that ultra valuable information, and not end up in a crappier situation than when you started.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

He got out of the car and a chase ensued.

He is not a law enforcement officer, he does not have any power to stop and detain citizens.

 

[Dancing David]

It would. What wouldn't be acceptable is attacking the guy who asked that. But then... the kid was in a gang and had been kicked out of school... so he obviously had a habit of making antisocial decisions...

And you data and source are?
Iteration1

To be so sure at this stage means that you are indulging your prejudices rather than analyzing the evidence.

 

[RobRoy]

Your entire point seems to boil down to " But i am pissed, i can't just not be pissed, that takes so much effort." , and really that is a horribly poor line of logic, and you then take the step of saying this would cause you fear, not only that, but enough fear that you wouldn't trust this person for the amount of time it takes to walk to your door and close it.

I have to say, that sounds very paranoid, and that is coming from a guy that does walk around armed, on a constant basis. Letting your emotions run your life, let alone feeling justified in this, is how crap like this happens. If the first gent were to simply say to himself "I'll just give the baby his bottle and tell him what i am up to, and if he wants to go further, i'll just outsmart him." he'd be alive today. The knob in question wasn't a sociopath, just a jerk with the same fantasy most jerks have, being dirty harry.

And escalate is a perfectly appropriate word, you know how this person is going to react, and that by giving your answer that you admit is simply emotion fueled, it is going to simply cause him to act more like a knob , than by relating very simple information, that is not going to harm you. He isn't asking for a credit card number, or who you were banging, hell, you don't even have to tell the guy the truth, just make some crap up as to where you went.

Literally the only option that is guaranteed to make the situation more of a confrontation, is the emotion fueled snark of " None of your business." indeed it is none of his business, so lie. If your really that scared of telling someone you went on a snack run , it is the easiest way to not give that ultra valuable information, and not end up in a crappier situation than when you started.

You're actually not wrong. I've done this both ways, once with campus security who was, as you say, a "knob" who had just enough power to make him a problem. I took the air of "none of your business" and ended up in a pissing match that could have far more easily been dealt with if I had taken my "I'm important and you're just a badge" down a notch or three. It resulted in my being detained, and having a real officer step in to settle the matter after I was threatened with a jay-walking ticket by the campus security guy.

The second time, I was confronted at the train depot by a homeless man who claimed to be ex-military and wanted a handout. I told him, honestly, that I didn't carry money, only plastic. He escalated the issue, threatening me, and ranting off on what must have been several favorite issues. I could have done any number of things, such as threaten him back, or start to call the police. Instead, I just ignored him and went back to reading my book. That defused the situation and he meandered off on his own. When it was clear that I wasn't going to engage in the manner he was looking for, whether or not he was actually ex-military, there really was nothing more for him to do.

I'll admit, that in many situations, my first instinct is to get right up in someone's face. This is not productive at all, and I have to talk myself down before I get into more trouble than its really worth. I volunteer coach at a high school, and I see the same thing. A lot of students go with the emotional reaction first, which only pushes things, sometimes out of control.

 

[Checkmite]

People committing crimes.

Again, it makes no sense if you think "these ********" refers to blacks getting away with being black. It makes no sense whatsoever.

That's true; but did "people committing crimes" describe Martin at the time of the phone call?

 

[RobRoy]

He got out of the car and a chase ensued.

He is not a law enforcement officer, he does not have any power to stop and detain citizens.

Actually, he might under the concept of "citizen's arrest". Although, I'll readily admit that I'm uncertain what the provisions are in Florida.

 

[Moss]

Actually, he might under the concept of "citizen's arrest". Although, I'll readily admit that I'm uncertain what the provisions are in Florida.

Which would lead to the question of "what for?". Wearing a hoodie isn't criminal anywhere afaik. Yes, maybe we are missing relevant information about what lead to that confrontation but I'm not sure what it could be.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm fairly certain that the common thread behind citizen's arrest no matter the jurisdiction is that some kind of crime must have been committed.

 

[RobRoy]

Which would lead to the question of "what for?". Wearing a hoodie isn't criminal anywhere afaik. Yes, maybe we are missing relevant information about what lead to that confrontation but I'm not sure what it could be.

I'm fairly certain that the common thread behind citizen's arrest no matter the jurisdiction is that some kind of crime must have been committed.

I wasn't asserting some kind of additional knowledge into the case, only that Zimmerman could, legally, detain another citizen. His actions would then have to be reviewed by the authorities. That's all.

 

[Giz]

To be so sure at this stage means that you are indulging your prejudices rather than analyzing the evidence.

You should point that irony meter in the mirror. I have clearly stated that either party might be at fault. My counterpoints have been merely to illustrate to all the Zimmer-framers that there are hypotheticals under which he might be justified (just as there are also hypotheticals under which he is a trigger happy wannabe Dirty Harry).

What did Holmes say, something like: "It is a capital error to build theories in the absence of evidence Watson. Inevitably, when new evidence arises one twists the evidence to fit the theory rather than the theory to fit the evidence."

 

[Noztradamus]

It is not in dispute that Zimmerman exited his vehicle with a gun and confronted Martin after 911 instructed him not to. The circumstances of the "struggle" may be nebulous, but it seems blatant to me that Zimmerman deliberately escalated the situation.

If I was Dick Wolf writing the scenario, Martin is walking, (with hoodie up because it's raining) slowly (because a damp hoodie is less inconvenient than damp front of clothing). Zimmerman reports this to 911 and follows him in his car.
Martin is worried, because when you are a young black being followed, for no good reason, by a young hispanic it is often not of the good.
Martin challenges Zimmerman, who decides he is not going to let one of these ******** get away with it again, and exits his car.
He attempts to detain Martin for questioning. Martin resists.
Zimmerman, now very embarrassed at having the crap beaten out of him by a ****** a decade younger and 100 pounds lighter, draws and fires.

 

[WildCat]

That's true; but did "people committing crimes" describe Martin at the time of the phone call?

Obviously not, but it's irrelevant as to this point. Zimmerman thought he was suspicious enough to call the police.

 

[WildCat]

He got out of the car and a chase ensued.

He is not a law enforcement officer, he does not have any power to stop and detain citizens.

What evidence do you have that there was a chase? Or that Zimmerman stopped and detained Martin?