Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

In the US, you are considered innocent until proven guilty, and this presumption is very strong.

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

 

[sgtbaker]

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

Yes but the question is, can the investigators prove that it wasn't justifiable homicide? Until they can, he is not guilty in the eyes of the law (which doesn't translate to innocent).

 

[Checkmite]

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

 

[Resume]

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

That's up to the jurisdiction's prosecutor and that's always a subjective call especially in a volatile political situation like this one.

 

[sgtbaker]

They can prove it was homicide. That should be enough for a trial. Let a jury decide whether it was "justifiable".

Homicide is merely the act of one person killing another. It is not illegal, in and of itself. Quite honestly, I think this state learned it's lesson with Casey Anthony. It doesn't matter how guilty a person looks. All they have is what the police saw when they arrived on the scene; one man, clearly physically assaulted and his assailant is dead. We know for a fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, we know for a fact that Zimmerman approached Martin, the evidence to counter a justifiable homicide, those moments between the approach and the shot, is unknown and pure speculation. It would not hold up in court.

 

[Checkmite]

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired. Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

 

[crimresearch]

Self appointed could just mean that he volunteered as opposed to be elected. So many assumptions by people.

History of violent run ins? He was punched while trying to break up a fight, he was robbed at gun point. Wow, what a menace. We might want to consider locking up people who are robbed at gun point and get their jaw broken trying to break up fights. Those damn violent victims.

You live up to your name. Neighborhood Watch groups are neither paid jobs nor elected government positions. Everybody is a volunteer. Not everybody is a 'Captain' driving around alone with a gun confronting people.

They are organized under the National Sheriffs Association.The structure goes from a liason with law enforcement to a Watch Coordinator down to block captains who keep phone lists and distribute information for groups of 10 to 15 houses.

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

 

[crimresearch]

Small question regarding self defense in US law: I think here(Germany) you need to prove self defense beyond doubt to get the charges for the violence needed to repell the unlawful attack dropped. Unless you do get the sentence accorded to violent action used. (E. g. manslaughter)
Do I understand it correctly that in the U. S. law enforcement has to gather evidence to build a case that it was not self defense before the person using violence can be charged?

The government (law enforcement and the prosecutor's office) must build a case that a crime has been committed and that a certain person violated the law.

Then the prosecutor has to clear a threshold of getting that person charged.

Then a court decides whether the presumption of innocence remains intact, or whether the government has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Along the way, claims (accident, self-defense, insanity, someone else did it, etc.) can be made by the accused in their defense and those claims may or may not be accepted at any stage of the process.

 

[tyr_13]

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired.

And what does this information actually tell us? That at some point they were on the ground separated. How does this effect the claim of self defense? It doesn't one way or the other, besides supporting that there was indeed an altercation.

Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

And what does this tell us? How was the witness able to discern who was calling for help? It doesn't appear the witness saw the boy yelling, so it could have been the other guy yelling.

 

[crimresearch]

But that no longer applies here; the killer freely admits to being the killer.

That applies up until the moment that a verdict is entered.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You live up to your name. Neighborhood Watch groups are neither paid jobs nor elected government positions. Everybody is a volunteer. Not everybody is a 'Captain' driving around alone with a gun confronting people.

They are organized under the National Sheriffs Association.The structure goes from a liason with law enforcement to a Watch Coordinator down to block captains who keep phone lists and distribute information for groups of 10 to 15 houses.

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

I think you're more deserving of my name from reading your posts. Who cares about a paid job? what does volunteering have to do with a paid job? What does it have to do with an elected position. I have a neighborhood watch. No one is paid, but people volunteer to do things. There's no captain, there's no national sheriffs association. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

What's not adding up is that we lack information about what is going on, and some of us aren't making assumptions or throwing insults at others who aren't making stuff up like you are about this having to be paid to volunteer for your local neighborhood watch.

 

[Dancing David]

This is really beginning to bother me. Once race becomes a matter, there is no winning. There are marches and rallies going on, demanding an arrest. I have nothing against demanding further investigation but demanding an arrest when there is not enough evidence is not how our justice system works.

Eaxctly

 

[Cainkane1]

I find it difficult to believe that a man with a gun said "Hey theres a black guy; I'm going to shoot him" I know it happens but there has to be more to this. Much more.

 

[Dancing David]

It is not pure speculation; there are witnesses to the fight, and at least one of them places both combatants on the ground separated from each other before the shot was fired. Another one claims to have heard the boy calling for help prior to the shot as well.

And these are the things that have been turned over to the state attorney's office.

 

[crimresearch]

I think you're more deserving of my name from reading your posts. Who cares about a paid job? what does volunteering have to do with a paid job? What does it have to do with an elected position. I have a neighborhood watch. No one is paid, but people volunteer to do things. There's no captain, there's no national sheriffs association. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

What's not adding up is that we lack information about what is going on, and some of us aren't making assumptions or throwing insults at others who aren't making stuff up like you are about this having to be paid to volunteer for your local neighborhood watch.

You brought up 'elected' positions, then you claim you don't care about them before fabricating the strawman that I brought them up.
You have no clue what the requirements are for the officially recognized volunteer Neighborhood Watch program, and after they've been posted, you spin into denial.

Every post about this incident that I've made here has been clearly premised on the available minformation not adding up to a rational conclusion either way, so your claim to the contrary is a deliberate falsehood.
And your whining about being 'insulted' because reality doesn't match your imaginary expertise, does nothing to bolster credibility.

On the other hand, you have shown zero evidence to support your claim that I've been wrong in my posts, and you won't be able to produce any, either.
Go ahead, show everyone where I had no clue about innocent until proven guilty. Show everyone where I simply made up all of that about the Florida statutes, or how criminal prosecutions work. Show everyone where I faked the the links or quotes I posted.

Or keep up the disingenuous tap dancing, and prove yourself to be simply another troll projecting your own tactics onto others. Your choice.

If some homemade group isn't organized volunteers under the nationally recognized Neighborhood Watch program, then it is just a bunch of people calling themselves 'a neighborhood watch', which goes back to the points already made.

 

[WildCat]

Something about the details as reported by the media so far, isn't adding up. Like where is his security license to be breaking up fights, much less his armed security license?

You know what else is missing? Support for your claim that an unpaid volunteer acting as a security guard needs a license.

I don't expect you will be presenting such evidence either.

 

[crimresearch]

You know what else is missing? Support for your claim that an unpaid volunteer acting as a security guard needs a license.

I don't expect you will be presenting such evidence either.

Awwww... The 'floating pristine bullet' expert weighs in.

The legal heavyweight who assured us that when federal law enforcement agents with badges, guns, and handcuffs lock someone up, and that person has to post bond with a federal judge before returning to be tried by that judge on charges of violating the law, that there is no presumption of innocence, because it's purely 'a civil matter'.

And now he's here to assure us that in Florida, there is no legal prohibition to a sovereign citizen running around with a gun protecting other people's property.

Specifically that there is no requirement that in order for the crime of trespass to have occured, a person be ordered off the property by the owner or an authorized person, not just a random self appointed 'captain'. These words in 810.09 simply don't exist because Wildcat says so.

If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person

And Zimmerman working security as the link I gave claims? But of course no one in Florida needs a license to work security... because *someone* tells us so.

Note that I never claimed that Zimmerman *was* working security in the current case, I asked why the media hadn't been able to find out if he was working as an authorized agent of the owner to protect the property, and if so, whether or not he was licensed.



http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/security/about.html
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/security/firearms.html

You know Wildcat, now that you've solved this case, you really need to start charging people for all your legal advice, I'm sure you can command every penny it is worth. Maybe you can even take up where Jerry Kane left off.

 

[Checkmite]

That applies up until the moment that a verdict is entered.

Can't be a verdict if there's no trial.

 

[crimresearch]

Can't be a verdict if there's no trial.

Are you going for the obvious, or is 'up until' not a phrase you understand?

If there is no trial, then the person remains in the default status of 'presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law'.

Unless of course, you would care to produce some facts to the contrary?

 

[Checkmite]

And what does this information actually tell us? That at some point they were on the ground separated. How does this effect the claim of self defense? It doesn't one way or the other, besides supporting that there was indeed an altercation.

It raises the possibility that the killer might not have been in mortal fear of his life, but merely losing a fight that he clearly meant to participate in (if he didn't throw the first punch), which means he might not be able to justify using deadly force legally as self-defense.

And what does this tell us? How was the witness able to discern who was calling for help? It doesn't appear the witness saw the boy yelling, so it could have been the other guy yelling.

Arguments for a jury to hear.