Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

Just out of curiosity, to those with a law enforcement background: how commonplace is it for people using a gun while defending themselves to fire only a single shot at their attacker?

 

[triforcharity]

Is this true?

What do you mean by "immediate".

Was it within seconds of the shooting, or merely within minutes of the shooting?

Yes, it's true as of today. Zimmerman has not said one word to anyone in the media or Martin's family.

He claimed self defense before Martin's body had stopped bleeding.

 

[triforcharity]

Just out of curiosity, to those with a law enforcement background: how commonplace is it for people using a gun while defending themselves to fire only a single shot at their attacker?

Well, in the CW course I went through, we were taught two to center mass.

I haven't researched it, but I would say it would be rare. But, it's mearly speculation. In the 5 that I looked up, all fired more than one round.

I just spoke with my neighbor (a retired homicide investigator) and he said that in the ones that he investigated, every single one fired two or more shots.

One guy fire 32.

 

[Moss]

Someone mentioned two shots being fired, but I am not sure where I read that and if it is indeed true.
Ah, found one source to mention it here.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, it's true as of today. Zimmerman has not said one word to anyone in the media or Martin's family.

He claimed self defense before Martin's body had stopped bleeding.

Not that I am implying that you know, but I would still like to know if the shooter was saying "self defense" literally immediately, within seconds of the shooting, or if it was after a minute or two.

 

[Checkmite]

Someone mentioned two shots being fired, but I am not sure where I read that and if it is indeed true.
Ah, found one source to mention it here.

Interesting. Two shots fired but Martin was only hit once in the chest. Either Zimmerman's first or second shot missed...but why? Was he too far away, or was he too close and Martin was struggling with the gun? Did the police do any tests to determine how far away the bullet was fired from? Did they even take the gun at all?

 

[crimresearch]

Not that I am implying that you know, but I would still like to know if the shooter was saying "self defense" literally immediately, within seconds of the shooting, or if it was after a minute or two.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborho...-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136

Witnesses told ABC News they heard Zimmerman pronounce aloud to the breathless residents watching the violence unfold "it was self-defense," and place the gun on the ground

You seem to have some information that makes you discount this report as an answer to your question, what is it?

 

[Checkmite]

Which call was it that two shots were heard on? I only hear one shot on this one:

[youtube]hj4RHJ0taoc[/youtube]

 

[triforcharity]

Not that I am implying that you know, but I would still like to know if the shooter was saying "self defense" literally immediately, within seconds of the shooting, or if it was after a minute or two.

I would say minutes based on the recordings of the 911 calls, and the eyewitness accounts.

I'll go back and see if I can hear anything in the audio that I can clearly make out.

 

[triforcharity]

Which call was it that two shots were heard on? I only hear one shot on this one:

Fixed your link for you.

I thought I heard two shots also, but I am not certain.

 

[This is The End]

You seem to have some information that makes you discount this report as an answer to your question, what is it?

Sorry to give that impression, it's not that at all. I am, in fact, imagining how one or the other would be used by lawyers and how either would play out to a potential jury.

Pleading self defense mere seconds after the shooting seems a little weird.*

Talking about self defense after a minute or two, on the other hand, would be more "normal".

*As someone pointed out earlier, there really isn't a normal in situations like this. But that doesn't really change how a lawyer might frame it.

I would say minutes based on the recordings of the 911 calls, and the eyewitness accounts.

I'll go back and see if I can hear anything in the audio that I can clearly make out.

Thanks for looking into it.

 

[fuelair]

Well, I can follow that right up to the point where the police listen to the shooter's narrative, and say 'OK, you can go", and then the Sheriff tells the media that the 911 calls prove that the shooter stated that he didn't know if the victim was black or white... which is utterly debunked by the tapes they finally released.

Just a minor point - The little booklet they send us here in FL. when we get the carry permit says we can't shoot someone simply for hitting us (and there is, so far, no evidence the kid ever hit Z - or even neglected to call him sir). To shoot we have to be in reasonable fear for our lives - or the perp must have invaded our house or functional equivalent.

 

[fuelair]

Just out of curiosity, to those with a law enforcement background: how commonplace is it for people using a gun while defending themselves to fire only a single shot at their attacker?

No official law enforcemnt background, but training is normally at least double-tap. If you are in drug enforcement I suspect triple is normal as some drugs keep some normal reactions to being shot slow/less effectual.

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry to give that impression, it's not that at all. I am, in fact, imagining how one or the other would be used by lawyers and how either would play out to a potential jury.

Pleading self defense mere seconds after the shooting seems a little weird.*

Talking about self defense after a minute or two, on the other hand, would be more "normal".

*As someone pointed out earlier, there really isn't a normal in situations like this. But that doesn't really change how a lawyer might frame it.




Thanks for looking into it.

Well if there is a trial I would expect that the 2 sides will frame just about everything in opposite manners.

If the ABC witnesses are correct, and the shooter said it within seconds, that could be argued as a frantic attempt to excuse bad conduct, or as something he was taught to say in a use of force briefing somewhere.

In so many cases, what witnesses saw, heard, and claimed, as well as the perceptions of those involved, are going to be skewed by a wide variety of factors, and that is without even getting into guilt, innocence, or motivations.

At this juncture, I doubt if even a trial is going to answer every question. That's not saying there should or shouldn't be one, it's just a basic skepticism about Perry Mason moments.

 

[crimresearch]

Just a minor point - The little booklet they send us here in FL. when we get the carry permit says we can't shoot someone simply for hitting us (and there is, so far, no evidence the kid ever hit Z - or even neglected to call him sir). To shoot we have to be in reasonable fear for our lives - or the perp must have invaded our house or functional equivalent.

How did you get from what I said about race being mentioned on the 911 tape, to that non sequitur about something that I've never disagreed with, and in fact have pointed out many times in the past?

 

[Finn McR]

It ain't vigilantism if it is self defense.

It could have been a confrontation between a Jew and a Black, just guessing from their names. Things heated up, a sot fired in self defense. PD is quiet, letting the edge wear of the new-ness, hoping to prevent wide spread emotions.

Or not, perhaps it was an accidental shooting, "I didn't meant to pull the trigger", but the PD is quiet to also prevent wide spread emotions.

Oh well, we'll see.

Or take half a minute to check on the reported facts of the case. Then you will see that it is an armed citizen that decided to take upon himself the role of an arresting officer (vigilante), despite the advice of 911 dispatchers and the choice to follow in his vehicle, and forced a confrontation in which he used deadly force. Besides this [expletive deleted]'s judgement, the question is why the Sanford police failed in their duty to investigate a crime.

The shooter is probably going to pay out of the nose for this, and that is the minimum of justice. He shot and killed someone without good justification. I don't know what the laws of your jurisdiction are or how good your concealed carry permit training are, but the right to carry arms does not give you the right to start an altercation and then finish it by murdering your opponent on the basis of self-defense (even if you bite off more than you can chew).

Here is a tip: Neigborhood Watch Wanna-be Renta-cops: Stay in your car, Call the police. What neighborhood watch police liaison officer says that the watch should carry??

 

[Finn McR]

I did not mean to imply that armed self-defense is vigilantism. I am all for a citizen's right to keep and bear arms and for permitted (where required) citizens to carry concealed firearms. I've done so in the past.

The point that I may have missed is that the weapon carrier in this case created the "situation." He had every opportunity to stay out of a deadly force encounter. In fact, even in the final event (the weapon carrier getting out of his vehicle and confronting a person going about his lawful way) he could have disengaged. By following and confronting a person, confronting without cause and confronting while armed, the armed person escalated the encounter. He had the absolute responsibility for there being a firearm at the encounter and the absolute control to avoid it. He, therefore, has the responsibility for shooting to death a person. I've not heard any of the 911 tapes, but the shooter cannot possibly claim that he was threatened with serious bodily harm or death while sitting in his vehicle and pursuing an innocent person to the extent that he had to exit the vehicle (rather than drive off) and shoot that person.

edit to add: [Sigh, maybe most posters here are dyed-in-the-wool liberals ,or rightist deniers... If you attack someone (for random example, follow them in an SUV, get out with a firearm and yell at them) You Can Not Claim Self Defense. In that case, you, the shooter, are the attacker. Oh, God, this is making my brain bleed. The shooter's "suspect" was not engaged in any illegal activity before he was shot. If he were, that excuse would be put forward already. Do you not know any of these people? I do. They think that they are cops / survivalists / libertarian freedom fighters / etc. It is some dude with a gun*. This is some yahoo that thought that carrying a firearm made him some kind of hero who would rid his community of undesirables.

I hope that he is not a concealed-carry permit holder. Those of us who do carry should know that it is a responsibility not to be taken lightly and is in no way a license to kill.]

*Which normally I'd call a firearm, but the kind of fools shooting kids for walking in their gated communities would probably think of them as "guns" just like lefty know-nothings.

 

[Finn McR]

Florida Guy: "Gosh officer, I only followed this person, called his girlfriend a whore, said that I'd shoot his butt and that he should get out of here."
Sanford Police: "Then what happened?"
Florida Guy: "He came after me, so I shot in self defense."
Sanford Police: "Oh, Ok. Your'e free to go, have a nice night."

Is that what's next?

 

[This is The End]

Here's a new article (more of a editorial) that made the front page of Google new and it plays the race card:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...-Slain-black-teen-21st-century-invisible-man-

How can you get out of your truck against police advice, instigate a fight, get your nose bloodied in said fight, shoot the person you were fighting with, and claim self-defense? If anyone was defending themselves, wasn’t it Trayvon Martin?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317,0,3347110.story

Trayvon was under a five-day suspension when he was shot that Sunday night, but Kypriss said it was due to tardiness and not misbehavior.
"Trayvon was not a violent or dangerous child. He was not known for misbehaving," the teacher said. "He was suspended because he was late too many times."