Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[triforcharity]

Thanks for looking into it.

I went back and listened to the tape, and I can't make anything out clearly.

 

[crimresearch]

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

I notice that the article used the phrase 'just a few feet ' from his father's door. Nothing is given to confirm its accuracy.

If that *is* correct, then the 'stand your ground' statute would indicate that the victim was not necessarily the aggressor, but was in fact, turned so as not to present his back to his pursuer, as would be the legal right of anyone in a place where they had a right to be.
Which adds weight to the belief that the victim was engaged in self defense and was shot while doing so.

 

[triforcharity]

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.]

Unfortunately, he (Zimmerman) is in fact a licensed CWP holder.

And yes, he does give those of us, a bad name.

The vast majority of us would NOT under any circumstances, chase someone who we did not observe committing some actual crime.

 

[triforcharity]

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-

Just an FYI. That is an Op-Ed piece, by a guy who works for the Miami Herald by the name of Leonard Pitts.

And IMO, it's a ridiculous piece.

 

[triforcharity]

I notice that the article used the phrase 'just a few feet ' from his father's door. Nothing is given to confirm its accuracy.

If that *is* correct, then the 'stand your ground' statute would indicate that the victim was not necessarily the aggressor, but was in fact, turned so as not to present his back to his pursuer, as would be the legal right of anyone in a place where they had a right to be.
Which adds weight to the belief that the victim was engaged in self defense and was shot while doing so.

The Florida stand your ground law applies to ANYWHERE. It can be a local convenience store, a front porch, or my boat. ANYWHERE.

It doesn't matter where he was in relation to his father's house. Martin had a right to defend himself.

 

[crimresearch]

The Florida stand your ground law applies to ANYWHERE. It can be a local convenience store, a front porch, or my boat. ANYWHERE.

It doesn't matter where he was in relation to his father's house. Martin had a right to defend himself.

Siiiigh... No, not anywhere period, anywhere you have a right to be.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/Sec013.HTM

So yes, the fact that the victim was leaving a place he had a right to be, and almost made it to another place he had a right to be, *does* matter, very much... it works against any claim that the victim was in the wrong by turning to confront his pursuer. It could make the shooter's injuries a product of the victim exercising his rights under the law, which removes at least one leg from any 'self defense' stool.

Had the shooter caught up with him in a location where he had no right to be, say a few feet from someone's back door on the opposite side of the complex, then the shooter's self defense claim might have more credibility.

With this piece of information, it has less.

By all accounts, the victim had every right to be running toward his father's place.
More importantly, there doesn't appear to be any information to suggest that the shooter had any *reasonable* grounds to think otherwise.

In fact, several things that might bolster the shooter's self defense claim seem conspicuous by their absence.

 

[Moss]

In fact, several things that might bolster the shooter's self defense claim seem consicuous by their absence.

Sorry to be so dense, but what would those things be?

 

[WildCat]

Martin had a right to defend himself.

From what? Being followed?

There has been no evidence presented whatsoever that Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, or grabbed him, or even spoke to him.

 

[WildCat]

I went back and listened to the tape, and I can't make anything out clearly.

So you agree that the tape doesn't indicate who was screaming for help?

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry to be so dense, but what would those things be?

It isn't dense. I wasn't there, I have no idea what really happened other than the obvious homicide.

I look at what the media is reporting and I see inconsistencies with the shooter's claim of self defense.

1> The reasonable belief claim that the victim actually presented a danger to the shooter. Just having scrapes and cuts that could have been incurred by falling while running, or by the first physical contact with the victim, don't necessarily support that.

So, what is missing is how exactly did he get hurt, and to what extent?

2> Acting under color of authority to identify and remove a trespasser.
If the shooter was there in some official capacity, and acting under the Florida trespass statute already posted, he would have had a right to pursue an unknown person and order them off the property... possibly even detain them for the police.

What is missing is any evidence that he was authorized, other than one article saying he had 'worked as security' during another incident, and the whole 'self appointed Captain' thingy.

3> The shooter was 'standing his ground'. If 2 people both think that they are standing their ground, and one of them has a gun, then proportionate use of force comes into play.

What is missing is evidence that the shooter was using proportionate force.

4> The police claim that no probable cause was developed. That threshold is so low, that it is hard to believe that only what the media has presented wouldn't rise to the level needed.
One possible explanation is that the police have information that no one else has which explains away all the apparent PC.

What is missing of course, is what information do they have that would negate the appearances? Ancillary to that is why did the Sheriff find it necessary to claim that the 911 tapes contained a statement about not knowing the victim's race, when in fact they contained exactly the opposite?

There could be all sorts of possible answers to those questions, but without them, the blanket claim of 'Self defense' *looks* weak from the outside.

 

[triforcharity]

Siiiigh... No, not anywhere period, anywhere you have a right to be.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/Sec013.HTM

So yes, the fact that the victim was leaving a place he had a right to be, and almost made it to another place he had a right to be, *does* matter, very much... it works against any claim that the victim was in the wrong by turning to confront his pursuer. It could make the shooter's injuries a product of the victim exercising his rights under the law, which removes at least one leg from any 'self defense' stool.

Had the shooter caught up with him in a location where he had no right to be, say a few feet from someone's back door on the opposite side of the complex, then the shooter's self defense claim might have more credibility.

With this piece of information, it has less.

By all accounts, the victim had every right to be running toward his father's place.
More importantly, there doesn't appear to be any information to suggest that the shooter had any *reasonable* grounds to think otherwise.

In fact, several things that might bolster the shooter's self defense claim seem conspicuous by their absence.

Sorry, I read your post incorrectly. I read it as "he was near his fathers house, so he had a right to defend himself. " When in fact, he was in the neighborhood in general, and had every right to be there.

My bad.

 

[triforcharity]

From what? Being followed?

There has been no evidence presented whatsoever that Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, or grabbed him, or even spoke to him.

He admitted to following Martin, outside of his vehicle.

If he had NOT been OUTSIDE of his vehicle, this would not have occurred.

If he had been inside his vehicle, and Martin attacked Zimmerman there, I would be standing up for Zimmerman's right to defend himself.

He shouldn't had followed him outside of his vehicle. Period.

 

[triforcharity]

So you agree that the tape doesn't indicate who was screaming for help?

No, not at all. Please follow the links back to what I was speaking about.

Here, I will help you out.

I said that Zimmerman claims self defense within minutes of the shooting. Another poster (OnlyTellsTruth) asked me if it was immediate, or it was within minutes, or seconds. I said I wasn't sure, but would listen to the tape to see if I could make out anyone saying self defense, or anything of the sort.

I did go back, and listen to the tape. I cannot make out anyone saying anything about self defense.

However, there is clear evidence that someone is calling for help, and after the shot is fired, which you can clearly hear, the calls for help IMMEDIATELY stop.

Martin's family also confirm that the calls for help is in fact the boy, and not Zimmerman.

Conclusion, based on what I have heard, is that Martin was screaming for help, and Zimmerman shot him, ending his pleas for help.

 

[WildCat]

He admitted to following Martin, outside of his vehicle.

If he had NOT been OUTSIDE of his vehicle, this would not have occurred.

And if Martin hadn't gone OUTSIDE to get skittles this wouldn't have occurred.

If he had been inside his vehicle, and Martin attacked Zimmerman there, I would be standing up for Zimmerman's right to defend himself.

He shouldn't had followed him outside of his vehicle. Period.

And Zimmerman had every right to leave his vehicle, and to follow anyone he wished. Just like Martin had the right to go outside to get skittles.

 

[332nd]

And if Martin hadn't gone OUTSIDE to get skittles this wouldn't have occurred.


And Zimmerman had every right to leave his vehicle, and to follow anyone he wished. Just like Martin had the right to go outside to get skittles.

Did you warm up before that stretch?

 

[WildCat]

No, not at all. Please follow the links back to what I was speaking about.

Here, I will help you out.

I said that Zimmerman claims self defense within minutes of the shooting. Another poster (OnlyTellsTruth) asked me if it was immediate, or it was within minutes, or seconds. I said I wasn't sure, but would listen to the tape to see if I could make out anyone saying self defense, or anything of the sort.

I did go back, and listen to the tape. I cannot make out anyone saying anything about self defense.

However, there is clear evidence that someone is calling for help, and after the shot is fired, which you can clearly hear, the calls for help IMMEDIATELY stop.

Martin's family also confirm that the calls for help is in fact the boy, and not Zimmerman.

Conclusion, based on what I have heard, is that Martin was screaming for help, and Zimmerman shot him, ending his pleas for help.

Martin's father at first said he couldn't tell, only later did he change his tune.

The recording isn't high quality, as you'd expect from a telephone microphone picking up ambient noises through a wall or window. I certainly wouldn't be able to identify the voice if I knew the people involved, and I doubt Martins' parents could either. The voice of a person screaming doesn't sound like their normal voice, and the recording is poor.

 

[WildCat]

Did you warm up before that stretch?

How is it a stretch? It's not illegal to follow someone.

Everyone keeps pointing out that Martin had the right to be there, as if Zimmerman also didn't have that right.

 

[332nd]

Martin's father at first said he couldn't tell, only later did he change his tune.

The recording isn't high quality, as you'd expect from a telephone microphone picking up ambient noises through a wall or window. I certainly wouldn't be able to identify the voice if I knew the people involved, and I doubt Martins' parents could either. The voice of a person screaming doesn't sound like their normal voice, and the recording is poor.

Yeah... what parent could possibly recognize their child screaming...

 

[WildCat]

Yeah... what parent could possibly recognize their child screaming...

Martin's father for one, by his own admission.

 

[WildCat]

People screaming sound pretty much alike.