Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Travis]

There is no such state law, would you please shove the freaking off topic gun/anti-gun crap back where it belongs, and quit tap dancing on this dead man?

Do not tell me what to do. I will point out how demented and psychotic the NRA and everyone associated with it is as much as I want so long as it is on topic. And this is on topic. The stupid law they pushed for now makes murder legal.

 

[crimresearch]

Do not tell me what to do. I will point out how demented and psychotic the NRA and everyone associated with it is as much as I want so long as it is on topic. And this is on topic. The stupid law they pushed for now makes murder legal.

Legal murder is an oxymoron. This is not an NRA thread.
Using agit-prop to shout down discussion of the OP and replace it with political pooh flinging, is very much off topic.

And I didn't tell you, I asked you 'please'. What are you going to do, shoot me?

 

[DavidByron]

So in a normal state he would not be able to claim self defence since he was not in the process of defending himself but (by his own testimony and the 911 log) chasing after the kid.

In a gunslinger state like Florida where there's an "effective license to kill" he can claim self defence when he was the initiator / aggressor which is probably why the reports had the police saying things like he is claiming self defence even though he followed the boy.

In a gunslinger state you can intentionally kill people "legally" by accosting them and creating a tense situation which you then use to justify your "response" of self defence to your perception of their returned aggression.

Kind of like US foreign policy for the last 200 years.

 

[Giz]

So in a normal state he would not be able to claim self defence since he was not in the process of defending himself but (by his own testimony and the 911 log) chasing after the kid.

In a gunslinger state like Florida where there's an "effective license to kill" he can claim self defence when he was the initiator / aggressor which is probably why the reports had the police saying things like he is claiming self defence even though he followed the boy.

In a gunslinger state you can intentionally kill people "legally" by accosting them and creating a tense situation which you then use to justify your "response" of self defence to your perception of their returned aggression.

Kind of like US foreign policy for the last 200 years.

Thanks - that made me laugh!

p.s. April 1st isn't for a couple more weeks.

 

[DavidByron]

Well it is funny but it's also true. The US government keeps records which it releases after a period of time so the policy of the US government that it will try to make it's opponent appear aggressive by a series of deliberate provocations so that the US can claim self defence... is well documented is it not?

This guy in the story has a long record of basically following people that he finds suspicious and getting aggressive with them. He's a vigilante. In his case I don't think he was trying to murder people but his actions predictably lead to this killing and if he is not stopped he will probably kill again (or else be killed if he tries this on some other armed paranoid nut).

This wasn't an accident. The vigilante has a pattern of behaviour that has a small chance of creating this situation every time he does it and he does it about once every ten days according to the newspaper article.

 

[Noztradamus]

I thought that this article in Mother Jones was pretty informative:

The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained


(A lot of links to further information in there which I didn't include in the quote. Check out the article itself. It also includes audio of each of the 911 calls.)

Not really. My feeling is that the typical CCW shooting is more intensely investigated, even when they are not red-handed, over the body of their victim in a public street. "Just defending myself" isn't usually enough to go scot free. There may be an exception if the shooter is a police "confidentiual informant"

 

[korenyx]

Kansas law allows you to shoot someone if they are breaking in or you think they are breaking into your home. All shootings of this nature are investigated by the police and sometimes the KBI.
It may take awhile and there maybe lots of editorials- pro and con- but they are investigated. People may not agree with the findings but the police here do not take someone's word for it when the claim is self-defense.

 

[crimresearch]

So in a normal state he would not be able to claim self defence since he was not in the process of defending himself but (by his own testimony and the 911 log) chasing after the kid.

In a gunslinger state like Florida where there's an "effective license to kill" he can claim self defence when he was the initiator / aggressor which is probably why the reports had the police saying things like he is claiming self defence even though he followed the boy.

In a gunslinger state you can intentionally kill people "legally" by accosting them and creating a tense situation which you then use to justify your "response" of self defence to your perception of their returned aggression.

Kind of like US foreign policy for the last 200 years.

In any state, he would be able to *claim* self defense. That's the law of the land, not the locality.

Whether that claim prevailed would depend on a variety of factors which fall in line with US Supreme Court rulings. On paper those factors are supposed to be applied without bias.

In practice, they are all too often tainted by human failings... from bias, to corruption, to incompetence.

The notion of throwing away the eldest law, and taking self defense away from those who need it, because of imperfect outcomes is illogical to put it politely.

 

[Galteeth]

In a gunslinger state you can intentionally kill people "legally" by accosting them and creating a tense situation which you then use to justify your "response" of self defence to your perception of their returned aggression.

Kind of like US foreign policy for the last 200 years.

Well, I don't think "creating a tense situation" justifies physical aggression on the part of the person engaged. I am not referring to this specific case, but I don't have a problem with the law as you described it. If I don't like something someone is doing, I certainly have a right to express my opinion, which could lead to a tense situation. The fact that the tension might have been "created" by me doesn't justify the use of physical force.
Again, i am not speaking of this case in specific, because we don't know the key facts of what happened when the confrontation occurred, and chasing someone who is running away from you could certainly be interpreted as an aggressive (in the physical sense) act.

 

[fuelair]

Who in the hell would push for such a law in the first place? It's insane to create a law that allows you to assault someone because you think they don't "look right" then shoot them if they fight back.

What we wanted and got was a law that said we did not have to back out of our own house/yards to avoid assault by running. I do not run well, but I shoot well. BUT I am very suspicious of what happened in this case and suspect Zimmerman essentially murdered the kid - and am glad the Feds (per news this late afternoon) are coming in on it.

I want to freely be able to protect myself and others of my choosing or situational. I do not want anyone killing innocent people or getting away with being a pegboy "security" guy/fake/wannabee cop.

 

[triforcharity]

trioforcharity, sgtbaker and crimeresearch:

How does collection of evidence and best practice parse out?

In this case we have an admitted shooting. Not really witnessed by anyone directly. (At least from the data at hand)

So as far as say the following evidence:
-photos of the admitted shooter
-blood samples of the admitted shooter
-physical exam of the admitted shooter
-clothing of the admitted shooter

I am assuming that there is wide latitude in what constitutes the legislative definition of 'evidence that should be obtained' and that it comes down to 'best practice'.

Are there statutes in FL that possibly say, 'in case of a death involving a firearm injury there shall be the following evidence gathered'.

Or is it more of the 'if you are investigating a suspected murder you shall gather the following', or is it all up to the discretion of the investigating officers.

Well, I was curious about that also, so I spoke to me neighbor about this, and asked him exactly that.

First off, he said that without a doubt, a BAL should have been obtained, and a blood draw ordered.

Secondly, his clothes should have been taken into evidence, to be able to inspect for blood splatter, DNA, and the like.

Thirdly, his firearm should have been, at minimum, taken into evidence untill the DA decided what the outcome would be. It they press charges, the gun stays in evidence. If not, the gun is returned, with a stipulation that it may not be disposed of, sold or transferred in any way. Since new evidence could arise, they could decide in 5 years to press charges.

Lastly, detailed photographs of any injuries should have been taken, and signed off by a medical professional.

He did say that it's been a little while since he retired, so the whole who keeps the gun thing may have changed, but that is the way it was when he was investigating murders.

He also explained that this is SOP for any LE agency, but didn't know of any specific laws. He said that comes from the FDLE, which is the overseer of LE in the state. (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) The FDLE is who would investigate an officer involved shooting also.

Hope this helps.

 

[triforcharity]

Depends. It could certainly removed any doubt about criminal action. I think it is more the loosening of restrictions on self defense though.

I disagree 100%. From what has been reported in the news, this guy called 911 47 times in the past year. 47 TIMES! It's also coming out that this guy had a **** on for black teens in the neighborhood. (This is being reported by people in the neighborhood)

So, it sounds to me like this guy was WAY overboard, and was looking to be a hero. He wanted a confrontation IMO.

No gun law is going to stop that.

 

[triforcharity]

The Florida agency that sets standards is FDLE, but it is up to each department to have a policy in place.
I'm not aware of any laws that say 'Every firearms homicide must include a test for alcohol/drugs'.

Common sense implies that it would be a good thing to know if the shooter was impaired. And it is probably written down that the proper procedure is to test *suspects*.

But, according to the Sanford police, they decided early on that no crime had been committed. For what reasons, nobody there seems to want to say.
Maybe they've got some overwhelming piece of secret evidence that completely exonerates the shooter. Or maybe they just dropped the ball. Either way, they decided that Zimmerman was not a suspect in a crime.

And that's the problem. If they had simply held off on that declaration, they could have done a more thorough investigation.

Once they said that there wasn't enough PC to say that a crime had been committed, then there isn't enough PC to have Zimmerman tested. Free to go, means free to go.

I couldn't agree more.

HOWEVER, possessing a firearm while under the influence of drugs of any kind (Tylenol and such excluded) or alcohol is illegal in Florida. But, of course, someone at SPD dropped the ball there.

 

[triforcharity]

Do not tell me what to do. I will point out how demented and psychotic the NRA and everyone associated with it is as much as I want so long as it is on topic. And this is on topic. The stupid law they pushed for now makes murder legal.

Travis,

Actually, the problem isn't the "Stand your ground" law, it's the shoddy police work from the SPD.

Florida's SYG law allows you to pull and fire your weapon in any place that you're legally allowed to be. Meaning, a sandwich shop, your front yard, places like that. (It doesn't allow them in bars or places that serve alcohol as their primary income stream. Or, in places that you're not allowed to carry them anyway, like courthouses, hospitals, etc. )

But, the cavet is that you're only allowed to fire your weapon when there is reason to believe that your life, or the life of someone around you, is in danger. Getting your ass handed to you while wrestling on the grass, is not one of them. While you're chasing someone who hasn't committed any crime is another. If he was chasing someone whom he just witnessed kill someone, and gets in a scuffle, sure. Fire away.

It was enacted to allow people who (like myself) have a CWP, to use deadly force while in their car, and someone tries to carjack them. Or when some guy kicks in your door at 3am and tries to rob you. Before, you HAD to try to flee first, meaning if you were in your bedroom, and the window was there, you HAD to try to escape first. This eliminated that need.

I'm allowed to shoot you dead if you kick in my front door at 3am, and I don't HAVE to flee.

Hope this helps understand the law a little better.

I can get into more detail if you want.

 

[sadhatter]

Well it is funny but it's also true. The US government keeps records which it releases after a period of time so the policy of the US government that it will try to make it's opponent appear aggressive by a series of deliberate provocations so that the US can claim self defence... is well documented is it not?

This guy in the story has a long record of basically following people that he finds suspicious and getting aggressive with them. He's a vigilante. In his case I don't think he was trying to murder people but his actions predictably lead to this killing and if he is not stopped he will probably kill again (or else be killed if he tries this on some other armed paranoid nut).

This wasn't an accident. The vigilante has a pattern of behavior that has a small chance of creating this situation every time he does it and he does it about once every ten days according to the newspaper article.

I really think vigilante is the wrong term here.

A vigilante thinks there is something wrong with the way the legal system is ran, and chooses to circumvent that system in order to do good ( at the very least in their own minds.).

This guy is doing the exact opposite, he is mimicking the existing power structure in a desperate bid to be a part of it when he is not. "Whacker" when explained is a much better term for this kind of guy.

He is not a vigilante for the same reason the columbine kids wern't. They didn't want to avenge people wronged by the system, they just realized that when your willing to bring guns into the equation, you can easily be the bully instead of the bullied.

 

[WildCat]

What we wanted and got was a law that said we did not have to back out of our own house/yards to avoid assault by running. I do not run well, but I shoot well. BUT I am very suspicious of what happened in this case and suspect Zimmerman essentially murdered the kid - and am glad the Feds (per news this late afternoon) are coming in on it.

Huh? Where did you hear that? The report I saw had a White House spokesman saying they would not be getting involved. The feds don't investigate homicides except in rare instances where it's a federal crime, and there's nothing about this case that makes it a federal issue.

Maybe the Florida State Police will investigate, but I don't see any reason for the FBI to get involved, unless it's just to offer help with the forensics.

 

[triforcharity]

Huh? Where did you hear that? The report I saw had a White House spokesman saying they would not be getting involved. The feds don't investigate homicides except in rare instances where it's a federal crime, and there's nothing about this case that makes it a federal issue.

Maybe the Florida State Police will investigate, but I don't see any reason for the FBI to get involved, unless it's just to offer help with the forensics.

I think they're confusing Feds with FDLE. FDLE is going to investigate also, but it's ultimately up to the SAO to file any charges.

IIRC, I heard that FBI involvement might be for insight only, and not for primary investigation.

 

[000063]

I do find it amusing that people, including NPR, were using the incident to complain about white people in America, and Zimmerman turned out to be, apparently, Hispanic. Oops.

I'm not laughing at the incident itself, mind you.

 

[Gazpacho]

I do find it amusing that people, including NPR, were using the incident to complain about white people in America, and Zimmerman turned out to be, apparently, Hispanic. Oops.

I don't find that to be as much an "oops" as you apparently do, from what I know of Florida and especially the interior.

 

[fuelair]

Huh? Where did you hear that? The report I saw had a White House spokesman saying they would not be getting involved. The feds don't investigate homicides except in rare instances where it's a federal crime, and there's nothing about this case that makes it a federal issue.

Maybe the Florida State Police will investigate, but I don't see any reason for the FBI to get involved, unless it's just to offer help with the forensics.

Either CNN or CNBC had a teaser that said/strongly implied it. I did not see the story (I am not a fan of news during the election cycle, I just want to get a democrat who can win so no republicker gets it)itself as they ran political fecal matter(the kind of thing I hate re:teasers anytime - they want you to watch 15 minutes or more of crap to get to what may actually be important - I don't have thatkind of time) instead of actual news..