Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

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

Just making an observation.

 

[sgtbaker]

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.



Arguments for a jury to hear.

In Florida statute, you do not actually have to be in fear for your life, you can be in fear of bodily harm to use deadly force, in the no retreat law. The key phrase is "if he didn't throw the first punch". As far as the information that is available to us, no one was there to see who threw the first punch.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

Which still tells us nothing either way of the claim of self-defense. It doesn't raise the possibility, that possibility is there regardless. At that point in the altercation, it doesn't appear he could have reasonably thought his life was in danger, but note that he didn't (apparently) have the weapon drawn either.

Arguments for a jury to hear.

Not if the prosecutor doesn't believe there is enough evidence. That specific part is poor evidence for a whole host of reasons already, and possibly even more reasons we don't know about concerning the witness and if the witness had ever interacted with either man. We don't even know why the witness believed it was the teen yelling and not the man.

 

[sgtbaker]

Not if the prosecutor doesn't believe there is enough evidence. That specific part is poor evidence for a whole host of reasons already, and possibly even more reasons we don't know about concerning the witness and if the witness had ever interacted with either man. We don't even know why the witness believed it was the teen yelling and not the man.

In one of the articles linked, here, the woman who's yard it happened in said that she was sure that it was Martin screaming because it stopped as soon as the gun went off. That kind of makes no sense because if your attacker is no longer attacking you, you have no reason to scream, either.

 

[Checkmite]

Which still tells us nothing either way of the claim of self-defense.

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun. Under the "stand your ground" law Martin was entitled to fight if he felt threatened. But then Zimmerman was entitled to shoot if he felt threatened back?

I don't think so. Given the fact that he's the one who approached and confronted Martin, I think it could be argued that Zimmerman had no "ground" to stand.

 

[sgtbaker]

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun. Under the "stand your ground" law Martin was entitled to fight if he felt threatened. But then Zimmerman was entitled to shoot if he felt threatened back?

I don't think so. Given the fact that he's the one who approached and confronted Martin, I think it could be argued that Zimmerman had no "ground" to stand.

Approaching someone is not necessarily considered an act of aggression. How did Zimmerman approach him? What words transpired between the two? Who hit first?

 

[tyr_13]

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun. Under the "stand your ground" law Martin was entitled to fight if he felt threatened. But then Zimmerman was entitled to shoot if he felt threatened back?

I don't think so. Given the fact that he's the one who approached and confronted Martin, I think it could be argued that Zimmerman had no "ground" to stand.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be what I argued.

And again with the, 'with a gun'. How did Martin know Zimmerman had a gun when he first approached? Any answer to that is speculation without more information.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

You're aware of the fact that race became a matter several centuries ago, and continued to be a matter more or less continually through the present day, right?

 

[Kevin R Brown]

Now, you may be right and Zimmerman just wanted to shoot a black guy that day, but it's pure speculation on your part and you have no evidence of that at this time.

Yers, there is no evidence that Zimmerman committed a pre-meditated murder. I mean, aside from:

- The body of the person he murdered
- His recently discharged weapon
- His admission that he shot and killed Martin
- The 9-1-1 call he made where he vowed not to let Martin 'get away'

There's also some not-so-hard evidence, like witnesses claiming to hear Martin screaming for help, the fact that Zimmerman was in his vehicle and at no point could've been confronted by Martin without leaving it, that Zimmerman was a grown man who was 100 lbs heavier than Martin if Martin really did somehow punch his way into Zimmerman's car to start the altercation.

The burden of proof has been by Martin's accusers. If you want to defend him, it's your turn to start offering-up evidence for the claim of self-defense (not that you've taken-on the burden of proof by making the positive claim 'Zimmerman was acting in self-defense').

So let's hear, it apologists: Where's the evidence that Zimmerman was forced to shoot and kill Martin for his own safety?

 

[Metullus]

Yers, there is no evidence that Zimmerman committed a pre-meditated murder. I mean, aside from:

- The body of the person he murdered
- His recently discharged weapon
- His admission that he shot and killed Martin
- The 9-1-1 call he made where he vowed not to let Martin 'get away'

There's also some not-so-hard evidence, like witnesses claiming to hear Martin screaming for help, the fact that Zimmerman was in his vehicle and at no point could've been confronted by Martin without leaving it, that Zimmerman was a grown man who was 100 lbs heavier than Martin if Martin really did somehow punch his way into Zimmerman's car to start the altercation.

The burden of proof has been by Martin's accusers. If you want to defend him, it's your turn to start offering-up evidence for the claim of self-defense (not that you've taken-on the burden of proof by making the positive claim 'Zimmerman was acting in self-defense').

So let's hear, it apologists: Where's the evidence that Zimmerman was forced to shoot and Martin for his own safety?

So, just for chuckles, who here is a Zimmerman "apologist"?

 

[Kevin R Brown]

So, just for chuckles, who here is a Zimmerman "apologist"?

Well, just skimming through the thread, sgtbaker and Wild Cat fit that description.

 

[Dancing David]

I do not think it is 'apologist' to say we don't know what there is to know.

 

[Metullus]

Well, just skimming through the thread, sgtbaker and Wild Cat fit that description.

What, exactly, did they say that strikes you as being "apologists" for Zimmerman?

 

[Checkmite]

Funny, that doesn't seem to be what I argued.

And again with the, 'with a gun'. How did Martin know Zimmerman had a gun when he first approached? Any answer to that is speculation without more information.

Whether Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun doesn't matter to my point; Zimmerman chose to bring a gun when taking off after Martin which tells me he anticipated using it. We know from the description of his phone call to the police dispatcher that he intended to keep Martin from "getting away". Do you imagine after referring to him on the phone with the police as one of "these ***holes" that he wasn't going to let get away, Zimmerman ran up to Martin but stopped a few feet away and meekly said "Pardon me, good sir? Might I have a kind word?", and Martin just turned around and attacked him?

We already know Zimmerman had a motive for initiating a confrontation. Martin had his back to the direction Martin was coming from, and had his hood up. He couldn't have even known Zimmerman was coming up behind him.

 

[tyr_13]

Whether Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun doesn't matter to my point; Zimmerman chose to bring a gun when taking off after Martin which tells me he anticipated using it. We know from the description of his phone call to the police dispatcher that he intended to keep Martin from "getting away". Do you imagine after referring to him on the phone with the police as one of "these ***holes" that he wasn't going to let get away, Zimmerman ran up to Martin but stopped a few feet away and meekly said "Pardon me, good sir? Might I have a kind word?", and Martin just turned around and attacked him?

And yet Zimmerman didn't actually use the gun until he had already be involved in a physical altercation. What you imagine Zimmerman would do is not evidence of what Zimmerman did. I doubt he was as polite as your straw man example, but it doesn't appear he approached with weapon drawn ready for a fight either. What I imagine what Zimmerman would do is not evidence of what Zimmerman did either. The evidence isn't there.

We already know Zimmerman had a motive for initiating a confrontation. Martin had his back to the direction Martin was coming from, and had his hood up. He couldn't have even known Zimmerman was coming up behind him.

So?

 

[WildCat]

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. 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 .

I've hilited the parts that don't support your claim that Zimmerman needed a security license of some sort.

You won't be providing any such evidence, correct?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

No, I didn't bring up elected positions YOU did. You made a statement that somehow they can ONLY be elected. I gave an example of how that does not have to be the case. On top of that you make a false claim of a strawman? What is this?

And don't tell me I have no clue, I ***AM*** in a neighborhood watch which is how I know that what you are saying is completely untrue. There's not an ounce of truth to what you are saying at all.

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.

No they have not. You have simply made assumption and completely incorrect claims. This notion that someone has to be registered with the state and elected to be in a neighborhood watch or to even patrol their neighborhood? It's complete nonsense. It's simply baseless and untrue. I can say this as someone who is in a watch.

And cut the crap about me 'whining'. At least I don't have to stoop to acting like a spoiled child instead of making a valid argument. You know very well that your claims are completely untrue and so you have to defend it by childish remarks. Sorry, but you can't bully your way out of being wrong here. If you don't want people to call you on this, then stop making bogus claims.

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.

What evidence do I need to make my claim? I am on a watch, and nothing you said has been true about it. No one has registered with anyone, no one has elected with anyone, no one has to be hired. All these claims are completely false. I don't have to prove they are false, you have to prove they are true. Not only have you not done so, but I am living proof they are completely false.

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.

Most neighborhood watched ARE just a bunch of people calling themselves a neighborhood watch. And most likely so is the one in this new article. Did you prove otherwise? No, you didn't. You just made one of many assumptions that it's some nationally recognized watch program for some reason. Please feel free to prove that it is.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I've hilited the parts that don't support your claim that Zimmerman needed a security license of some sort.

You won't be providing any such evidence, correct?

But Zimmerman was robbed at gunpoint, thus proving he has a violent past. he also had his jaw broken trying to break up a fight, even more evidence he is a violent person who is clearly out to kill black people.

Thus proving to have a neighborhood watch you must have a licensee. Mine is apparently just imaginary, as my house and neighborhood must be as well. If in our next meeting I were to say "I am willing to patrol the neighborhood to keep an eye out" (to which everyone else would respond "thanks!"), then I would be violating the laws of space and time as one can only be voted into such a position once they get their magical patrolling license.

 

[Dancing David]

Unfortunately at this point a lot of alleged witnesses are coming forth, a teenager heard and saw the fight, but did not witness the actual end event. Others, adults, are now saying that Trayvon was separated from Zimmerman when the shot was fired. Zimmerman's father who wasn't there says something else.

Now here is the thing, we don't know what testimony was given at the time right after the incident and that is what will matter.

One witness is particular may not get to ever testify ( I am not judging this individual I just know she is likely to not be considered a good witness in court):
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...tin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story

a witnesses to the shooting, told WFTV-Channel 9 in a Wednesday report that police took only a short statement from her, despite repeated attempts to share what she saw at length.

"I said, 'I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling,'" Cutcher said, adding that she felt the police investigating the shooting "blew us off."

However and this is the critical part:

Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Morgenstern on Thursday issued a statement disputing Cutcher's version of events, calling her statements to WFTV "inconsistent with her sworn testimony to police."

"Actually officers who were canvassing the neighborhood looking for potential witnesses, the evening of the shooting, contacted her and she said she did not want to get involved," Morgenstern said.

...


"She did write a statement, for her roommate, and that was only after several attempts by officers who were asking for her information," Morgenstern said, adding that "the information she provided in her sworn statements… [was] consistent with the information Zimmerman provided."

Now the other thing is that we have to remember police play their cards with closed hands, they do not give details, they do not want to muddy already murky waters. I know of a case that took three years to come to a trial, a coworkers wife's father appeared to have committed suicide. Three years later the police came out with an iron clad case that the woman's mother had actually shot the man and made it look like suicide.

The woman was not arrested for three years, the family had no idea that she was being investigated for murder until the day they police arrested her.

 

[crimresearch]

I've hilited the parts that don't support your claim that Zimmerman needed a security license of some sort.

You won't be providing any such evidence, correct?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

Here is what I said:

Which leads right back to not enough information. Who authorized this guy to 'look out for the neighborhood'?
The media says 'self appointed', I still wonder what they are basing that on...
...This lends credence to the media's calling Zimmerman 'self appointed'... In other words, unless the property owner had him authorized and licensed to work armed security, he was a loose cannon.

Note the unless.


Here is what you claim I said

your claim that an unpaid volunteer acting as a security guard needs a license.

Here is what the dictionary says

Lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

ETA: Nevermind