Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[WildCat]

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

I guess not joining the internet lynch mob qualifies.

 

[WildCat]

Owww... Does anyone have a very small bandaid I can put on my ankle?

You've proven throughout your posting history that you think it is funny to make up ridiculous claims that other people never said, and then prance around crowing about your victory over your own straw men.

Let's put it in simple terms, and then you can go whining to the moderators if you want.

Here is what I said:



Note the unless.


Here is what you claim I said


Here is what the dictionary says

ETA: Nevermind

So you are backing away from your claim that Zimmerman required a license of some sort?

Do you remember your claim crim?

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 are now admitting you don't need a "security license to be breaking up fights"? Maybe someone hacked you account and posted that in your name? Have you contacted the admins about this breach?

 

[LTC8K6]

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

Certainly it applies. He has admitted to a killing in self defense, not to a murder.

 

[Checkmite]

I guess not joining the internet lynch mob qualifies.

Yeah, that Internet lynch mob that's so bloodthirsty they're demanding a trial.

 

[crimresearch]

How very clever of you to edit out everything else I said and ignore the missing context.
You must just be the bestest troll on the whole wide internet to come up with that all by yourself.

You are now admitting you don't need a "security license to be breaking up fights"?

And now the missing part... that it is reported that the 'breaking up fights' occurred *while he was working as security*, but the media is making no mention of his holding a license, so there appears to be information lacking.
That leaves the reasonable question as to how he could have been working security in that case... because yes, as has been proven with cites to the actual laws, in Florida, you need a license to 'work security'.

In other words, unless the property owner had him authorized and licensed to work armed security, he was a loose cannon.
Speaking of which , not only does he have a documented history of violent run ins with the police (the dropped charges turn out to have been dropped after completing a diversionary program), but he has a history of violent encounters from rushing in while 'working security' before.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witnes...slaying/nLSqk/
Something's missing at one end or the other of this.

So, as to what I did say, in Florida people need authorization from the property owner to order someone off of the property, or perform a citizen's arrest for trespassing.
The code was cited, and you simply deny it exists.

Or, if they are authorized by the owner to work security and they are carrying a gun, they had better have more than a CCW.
That code was cited, and again, your blanket denial is ridiculous.

In the 3rd possible scenario, if they are simply a 'self appointed' and imaginary 'Captain', then they've got no business running around on other people's private property shooting people.

In other words, based on the available information, none of the hypotheticals are satisfactorily proven, leaving the appearance that more or better information is needed.

But of course, you knew all that and yet once again, all you've come up with to support your counter assertion besides your imaginary legal expertise, has been the usual barrage of strawmen and other fabrications, chanted over and over like some magical incantation.

Until such time as you post something either correct, or useful, I'll keep regarding your keyboard commando games as an irrational waste of time.

 

[WildCat]

How very clever of you to edit out everything else I said and ignore the missing context.
You must just be the bestest troll on the whole wide internet to come up with that all by yourself.

Tis is funny! The omitted part of your quote doesn't alter your cxlaim one bit. You claim Zimmerman needed a license, yes? You have your to provide any evidence supporting this claim.

And now the missing part... that it is reported that the 'breaking up fights occured *while he was working as security*, but the media is making no mention of his holding a license, so there appears to be information lacking.

Feel free to show any evidence at all that shows Zimmerman was ever working as a paid security guard.,

We both know you have none, corect?

That leaves the reasonable question as to [/i]how he could have been working security in that case[/i]... because yes, as has been proven with cites to the actual laws, in Florida, you need a license to 'work security'.

Feel free to cite this law at any time crim. Are you sure it supports your claims?

So, as to what I did say, in Florida people need authorization from the property owner to order someone off of the property, or perform a citizen's arrest for trespassing.
The code was cited, and you simply deny it exists.

You have evidence Ziommerman ordered anyone off of any property? I gues this is yet another "fact" you forgot you innocently forgot to provide evidence for?

Or, if they are authorized by the owner to work security and they are carrying a gun, they had better have more than a CCW.
That code was cited, and again, your blanket denial is ridiculous.

Please cite your evidence that Zimmerman was ever paid to work security. Do you know what the term "for consideration" means in the Florida statute, or did you not actually read it?

(irrelevant blathering deleted)

So you're still standing by your claim that Zimmerman needed a license to patrol his neighborhood on an unpaid voluntary basis?

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, that Internet lynch mob that's so bloodthirsty they're demanding a trial.

Shouldn't you have evidence and charges before a trial?

 

[crimresearch]

Tis is funny! The omitted part of your quote doesn't alter your cxlaim one bit. You claim Zimmerman needed a license, yes? You have your to provide any evidence supporting this claim.




Feel free to show any evidence at all that shows Zimmerman was ever working as a paid security guard.,

We both know you have none, corect?


Feel free to cite this law at any time crim. Are you sure it supports your claims?


You have evidence Ziommerman ordered anyone off of any property? I gues this is yet another "fact" you forgot you innocently forgot to provide evidence for?


Please cite your evidence that Zimmerman was ever paid to work security. Do you know what the term "for consideration" means in the Florida statute, or did you not actually read it?


So you're still standing by your claim that Zimmerman needed a license to patrol his neighborhood on an unpaid voluntary basis?

The links to the media article claiming that Zimmerman 'worked security' have been posted, the links to the laws have been posted, the actual quotes of what I said have been posted, and the proof that you are lying about what I said has been posted.
Anyone who cares to can see them, and all your denial, snipping, and fabrications can't make them go away, or mean the opposite of what they say.

Once again, you and reality will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Checkmite]

Shouldn't you have evidence and charges before a trial?

A weapon, a suspect, evidence the suspect shot the victim, and witness statements all exist. Let a jury hear him say it was self defense and decide if he's lying or not.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

"Strange black kid. I'm gonna scare him back to where he belongs"

 

[quadraginta]

"Strange black kid. I'm gonna scare him back to where he belongs"

That wouldn't fit with the allegedly professed desire to not let him "get away".

 

[WildCat]

A weapon, a suspect, evidence the suspect shot the victim, and witness statements all exist. Let a jury hear him say it was self defense and decide if he's lying or not.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The defendant is under no obligation to tell anyone anything.

That's where evidence comes into play, got any? Once you get that, then the prosecutor can file charges. Then you get to have a trial.

 

[Metullus]

A weapon, a suspect, evidence the suspect shot the victim, and witness statements all exist. Let a jury hear him say it was self defense and decide if he's lying or not.

The problem being that we cannot judge whether all of the evidence thus far collected would support an indictment of Zimmerman since we are not privy to the full extent of the investigation. I am confident that there is more to the investigation than has thus far been published; I do not know, and will not presume to guess, whether the facts as yet not reported tend to damn Zimmerman or vindicate him. Until more of the investigative findings are made public I will defer to the DA's judgement as to whether a crime has been committed and whether Zimmerman should be prosecuted.

If this is Wildcat's point, and I think it is at least nearly so, I do not think that this is an unreasonable position to take.

ETA: I would suggest that if an investigation were to conclude that Zimmerman did not, in fact, commit a crime it would be unconscionable for the state to bring him to trial.

 

[sgtbaker]

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?

Yes, fully aware but, is it possible that this was an unfortunate interaction between two people who one happened to be black and one happened to be white without race ever being a factor? In the dark, with a hood on, did Zimmerman even know Martin was black?

 

[triforcharity]

So, can anyone tell me how long the shooter was in "investigative detention" at the station, the first time?

Less than 12 hours from what I have read.

Also my other question is still open as well:

note that the Police Sgt has the same last name as the shooter.

Are they closely related or is it a coincidence?

I believe it to be coincidence. If they were related in any way, he would have been required by department policy and also (IIRC) Florida law, to not participate in any part of the investigation.

 

[triforcharity]

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...

Citation please. I live in the area (Central Florida) and every account shows that he was a good student, had no criminal history, and no discipline problems in school.

Maybe you can provide something I missed?

 

[triforcharity]

What are the requirements for a conceal-carry license Florida? Even if it includes a basic safety course, it might not include any kind of exam in which you have to answer, "Keep my finger off the trigger." I'm not suggesting you're wrong, I'm suggesting that people are ignorant.

It does include, many times, that until you are ready to fire your weapon, you never put your finger inside the trigger guard.

I believe (it's been a while since I got mine) it's a compentency course of 4 hours, a passing grade of 85% or better, a background check, and a waiting period.

It usually takes about 2-3 months to be approved.

It's fairly simple though.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Who says that the NW guy didn't catch him and initiate the fight?

Some guy chases me down, in my neighborhood, and grabs me, I can assure you I will defend myself.

Every. Single. Time. And the boy was well within his rights. He was committing no crime, and was not doing anything wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Florida does not have a specific "citizens arrest" law. However, a sworn police officer could make a "citizens arrest" if he were outside of his jurisdiction.

However, from what I have seen, it only applies to sworn officers.

I could be wrong though.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Absolutely not. He must have witnessed an actual crime. Since walking while black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt is not a crime, he could not have detained the kid under any circumstances. This is called false imprisonment.

And, (again, as far as I can tell) C.A. only applies to sworn LEO's.