Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

Sorry if I'm covering old territory.

Once the 9/11 operator told him not to follow Trayvon didn't he give up his protection of "stand your ground"? I think a case can easily be made of reckless disregard. Cops were summoned. Treyvon was not committing a crime. Manslaughter seems a fairly easy case to make. But then I'm not an expert.

Without having more of the blanks filled in, it is really hard to say.

What has been reported so far does not work in favor of a self defense claim, but doesn't rule it out 100% either.

Stand your ground is predicated on that 'ground' being a place you have a right to be. Generally, that's open public places, your own property, or someplace you have permission for.
In the case of the housing complex, all 3 of those are in question. Did the HOA allow guns in the common areas? Was Zimmerman in fact on his own property?
Did Zimmerman have a right to be running around all over the place ? Let's just say that if Zimmerman himself had seen a man running around outside his dwelling, he probably would have been calling the cops because the man had no right to be there.

Which still doesn't mean that he then gave up the right to defend himself from a clear and imminent threat if reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm.

The big question is did things turn into a real situation where he was reasonably in fear for his safety from the person he shot?

And that is folllowed closely by how much was reasonable fear for his life from a smaller person who Zimmerman himself reported as running (i.e. retreating), and how much was simply unreasonable fear of getting punched by an unarmed person.

He could argue (another mantra) that he was afraid the other person was going to take his gun and shoot him... which cycles back to how did he put himself in a position where the other person could get his hands on the gun.

Right now, he is reciting exactly what an innocent person who had no other choice would say would say... or what a guilty person who wanted to look innocent would say, especially if they had immersed themselves in wannabe cop culture.

How much of this Zimmerman brought on himself, and what part the victim did or didn't play is probabaly never going to be proven to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[crimresearch]

So it is a license to kill? There are no consequences to one's actions. If you want to kill someone you only need to make certain you are alone, and claim self defense right?

Wow.

So is what a 'license to kill'?

Lying about a dead victim with no way of being proven wrong?



You had better sit down, this may come as a shock to you.

 

[RandFan]

How much of this Zimmerman brought on himself, and what part the victim did or didn't play is probabaly never going to be proven to everyone's satisfaction.

Thanks. The fact that the dispatcher told him not to follow meets my satisfaction. The police were on their way. There was no clear and present danger. The ass should spend the rest of his life in prison and there is just no question in my mind on that. His actions led to the death of a young man for no good reason other than bigotry and/or paranoia.

 

[RandFan]

So is what a 'license to kill'?

Lying about a dead victim with no way of being proven wrong?



You had better sit down, this may come as a shock to you.

If there is no clear and present danger and you are told that you are not needed then all actions that follow are on your head. Throw the ass in prison. His fears, paranoia resulted in the death of another human being. This isn't a difficult case in any way shape or fashion.

Just because some law gives people a license to kill other people doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Gazpacho]

I'm listening to an attorney discussion the FBI involvement. SYG has no bearing on a hate crime. If they can demonstrate that the killing was motivated by racial animus then they can try him for that.

They'd need evidence. And for a federal civil rights case they'd need evidence. To put it bluntly, Martin did not have any civil right in Florida that would protect him from being mistakenly but reasonably killed in self defense.

This isn't a difficult case in any way shape or fashion.

It might seem easy morally but it's very difficult legally, as with many other cases since the SYG law was passed.

 

[RandFan]

They'd need evidence. And for a federal civil rights case they'd need evidence. To put it bluntly, Martin did not have any civil right in Florida that would protect him from a mistaken but reasonable killing in self defense.

"Reasonable"? Aren't all killings reasonable? What exactly is an unreasonable killing out side of "I say I was in danger"?

 

[RandFan]

I'm convinced

SYG is the most asinine laws every passed. How is it not a license to kill? If the victim is the only witness then all other evidence is moot. Right? You just need to lull someone into a place where you can kill them and you are off scot free.

 

[Gazpacho]

"Reasonable"? Aren't all killings reasonable? What exactly is an unreasonable killing out side of "I say I was in danger"?

Again, Zimmerman is the only known witness to the moments leading up to the shooting. Another witness rebutting his story would make things very different.

 

[RandFan]

Again, Zimmerman is the only known witness to the moments leading up to the shooting. Another witness rebutting his story would make things very different.

That's my point. It's a law written for sociopaths. Right?

 

[Gazpacho]

If the victim is the only witness then all other evidence is moot. Right? You just need to lull someone into a place where you can kill them and you are off scot free.

Yeah it's kind of looking that way.

 

[crimresearch]

SYG is the most asinine laws every passed. How is it not a license to kill? If the victim is the only witness then all other evidence is moot. Right? You just need to lull someone into a place where you can kill them and you are off scot free.

Already explained in detail. The stand your ground law had nothing to do with this.

And there's no need for shrill accusations and wild finger pointing, that's what we pay Nancy Grace for.

 

[RandFan]

Already explained in detail. The stand your ground law had nothing to do with this.

And there's no need for shrill accusations and wild finger pointing, that's what we pay Nancy Grace for.

Sorry I missed the explanations. I've watched a number of pundits and they say it has everything to do with it. Could you provide a post #?

No shrill accusations here. Had the ass stayed in his car the boy would be alive. The police were on their way. There was no clear and present danger. His bigotry or paranoia or just being an idiot is the reason this young man is dead. This isn't the Duke Lacrosse case. All the idiot needed to do was wait for the police to do their job.

Now, had he witnessed a crime we might have a discussion. As it is there was no crime. No reason to chase the victim. Just amazing stupidity and bigotry or paranoia.

No Nancy Grace accusations. Open and shut stupidity at best and bigotry and race based murder at worst. Take your pick.

 

[Finn McR]

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.

Defend himself?? Defend himself? In the face of the available evidence you think that the pursuing armed person was defending himself against an un-armed person??

So, me not being a Florida resident and thus in no way knowledgeable about it's laws, you are claiming that someone with a concealed carry permit can suddenly attack an unarmed person (attack not using a firearm, just hand and foot as it were), start to lose the encounter, then pull out a firearm and shoot the initial defendant and still use self defense as an excuse? If so, I will not be going to Florida again.

Because that is crap. Here in Virginia we have decent right-to-carry laws, but still reasonable use of force applies. I can't start a fistfight, then try to shoot my way out of it and claim self defense. That is nuts. That is worse than the normal stereotype of the U.S. as the "wild west." Is this one more thing that I have to be embarrassed about?

There has been some discussion about Florida's "no-retreat" or "stand your ground" laws. If they mean the above, that an aggressor can start a fight, then use a claim of "self-defense" to shoot and kill the original defender, then what have we come to? I'm an NRA member mostly for convenience, but that is a ridiculous extension of a reaction against laws that require an armed citizen to retreat to the point of no escape before defending themselves. There is a huge difference in being required to run and hide if suddenly attacked by someone with a weapon and being allowed to shoot someone under any circumstance in which one felt threatened, including a situation that the shooter started in the first place.

 

[Gazpacho]

Just to give a clear example of "mistaken but reasonable," I'll relate a Florida case from several years ago that also made national news. It was prior to SYG when Florida was a "castle doctrine" state, so the protections of SYG applied to people defending their homes. I can't find it to verify so I might have some of the details wrong.

A group of Asian students with poor English were out at night on foot trying to locate a party. They paused outside a house and talked audibly. The owner of the house became afraid and got out his handgun. One of the students then decided to ask directions at that house and approached the doorway. The owner went into a shooting stance in the doorway, which was dark, and shouted "Freeze." The student apparently did not understand the command or see the gun, and he continued to walk toward the house asking for directions, at which point the owner shot him. He claimed self-defense and as I recall was not charged.

e: It was in Louisiana, not Florida.

 

[RandFan]

Just to give a clear example of "mistaken but reasonable," I'll relate a Florida case from several years ago that also made national news. It was prior to SYG when Florida was a "castle doctrine" state, so the protections of SYG applied to people defending their homes. I can't find it to verify so I might have some of the details wrong.

A group of Asian students with poor English were out at night on foot trying to locate a party. They paused outside a house for a while and talked audibly. The owner of the house became afraid and got out his handgun. One of the students then decided to ask directions at that house and approached the doorway. The owner went into a shooting stance in the doorway, which was dark, and shouted "Freeze." The student apparently did not understand the command or see the gun, and he continued to walk toward the house asking for directions, at which point the owner shot him. He claimed self-defense and as I recall was not charged.

Happened in California also. An Asian student whose care broke down in an urban area tried to get help from a homeowner and knocked on a door. The homeowner was scared and shot the student. He was acquitted.

Neither story are analogues. Being secure in your home is one thing. Playing vigilante chasing down people and killing them when no crime has been committed just doesn't compare. Not even close.

And FWIW: I'd vote to convict for involuntary manslaughter for both the anecdotes of of homeowners killing innocent people.

Oddly the same thing happened in Louisiana also. Asian student.

 

[Finn McR]

Without having more of the blanks filled in, it is really hard to say.

What has been reported so far does not work in favor of a self defense claim, but doesn't rule it out 100% either.

Stand your ground is predicated on that 'ground' being a place you have a right to be. Generally, that's open public places, your own property, or someplace you have permission for.
In the case of the housing complex, all 3 of those are in question. Did the HOA allow guns in the common areas? Was Zimmerman in fact on his own property?
Did Zimmerman have a right to be running around all over the place ? Let's just say that if Zimmerman himself had seen a man running around outside his dwelling, he probably would have been calling the cops because the man had no right to be there.

Which still doesn't mean that he then gave up the right to defend himself from a clear and imminent threat if reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm.

The big question is did things turn into a real situation where he was reasonably in fear for his safety from the person he shot?

And that is folllowed closely by how much was reasonable fear for his life from a smaller person who Zimmerman himself reported as running (i.e. retreating), and how much was simply unreasonable fear of getting punched by an unarmed person.

He could argue (another mantra) that he was afraid the other person was going to take his gun and shoot him... which cycles back to how did he put himself in a position where the other person could get his hands on the gun.

Right now, he is reciting exactly what an innocent person who had no other choice would say would say... or what a guilty person who wanted to look innocent would say, especially if they had immersed themselves in wannabe cop culture.

How much of this Zimmerman brought on himself, and what part the victim did or didn't play is probabaly never going to be proven to everyone's satisfaction.

crimresearch: It looks like you are trying to be reasonable, yet still excuse a murder. Do you think it would be ok for a person to hunt down an enemy with a rifle, slowly stalking them, and only shooting when the victim picked up a fence post, axe, pistol, whatever? It almost seems that way from the above. As if it does not matter what the aggressor did, just as long as he felt threatened in the last moment before killing the defender. That is not a high bar to cross.

So maybe it is ok for an adult to stalk a minor using an SUV and get out to confront the minor? If the minor responds negatively, surely he is a dangerous threat and should be shot?

Perhaps you don't get it: killing someone is irreversible.
I've carried concealed. Every time my concern was staying out of any situation in which I felt the need to draw the weapon. That's probably the best reason to carry, staying aware of the situation and getting out immediately if it seem sketchy. The shooter in this case did not do that. Who knows about his particular thoughts, but the situation looks like he decided that his pistol let him do what he wanted until the situation got to scary for him.

 

[Gazpacho]

That is the case I remember (or, you could say, don't remember). The command to "freeze" was a key fact of the case. I wish I had found it in search before posting.

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry I missed the explanations. I've watched a number of pundits and they say it has everything to do with it. Could you provide a post #?

No shrill accusations here. Had the ass stayed in his car the boy would be alive. The police were on their way. There was no clear and present danger. His bigotry or paranoia or just being an idiot is the reason this young man is dead. This isn't the Duke Lacrosse case. All the idiot needed to do was wait for the police to do their job.

Now, had he witnessed a crime we might have a discussion. As it is there was no crime. No reason to chase the victim. Just amazing stupidity and bigotry or paranoia.

No Nancy Grace accusations. Open and shut stupidity at best and bigotry and race based murder at worst. Take your pick.

Nancy Grace is a pundit. Jack Ford has no more qualifications than she does (short term prosecutor, then a media celeb), and he's a pundit.
So pardon me for not being impressed by the boob tube.

The fact is that people game the legal system if they can. They use the same mechanisms that protect the wrongly accused, like innocent until proven guilty, due process, probable cause, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and so forth.

Regardless of the threshold for self defense and retreat, psychopaths say whatever they think will let them get away with murder.

You want that to stop, then expect the number of innocent people in jail to go up correspondingly, the universe is a drag like that.

So no, SYG didn't let Zimmerman get away with anything, had Florida been a 'retreat' state, in the absence of witnesses, he could have still portrayed himself as the victim and said that he had his back to whatever was handy.

 

[RandFan]

So no, SYG didn't let Zimmerman get away with anything, had Florida been a 'retreat' state, in the absence of witnesses, he could have still portrayed himself as the victim and said that he had his back to whatever was handy.

But his actions are clearly reckless no matter what he says. In most states there are concepts in the law known as manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In those instances you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you know that police are on their way and you have no reason to believe there is imminent danger, then you are clearly responsible for the actions that follow if you disregard the instructions. FWIW: I've not watched Nancy or Jack Ford. I've watched prosecutors and attys (yes I know Nancy was a prosecutor don't care) discuss SYG. You might be right but so far you are a minority of one.

 

[crimresearch]

crimresearch: It looks like you are trying to be reasonable, yet still excuse a murder. Do you think it would be ok for a person to hunt down an enemy with a rifle, slowly stalking them, and only shooting when the victim picked up a fence post, axe, pistol, whatever? It almost seems that way from the above. As if it does not matter what the aggressor did, just as long as he felt threatened in the last moment before killing the defender. That is not a high bar to cross.

So maybe it is ok for an adult to stalk a minor using an SUV and get out to confront the minor? If the minor responds negatively, surely he is a dangerous threat and should be shot?

Perhaps you don't get it: killing someone is irreversible.
I've carried concealed. Every time my concern was staying out of any situation in which I felt the need to draw the weapon. That's probably the best reason to carry, staying aware of the situation and getting out immediately if it seem sketchy. The shooter in this case did not do that. Who knows about his particular thoughts, but the situation looks like he decided that his pistol let him do what he wanted until the situation got to scary for him.

So after 15+ pages of my posting careful and factual explanations, complete with references about why Zimmerman's story did not add up, and pointing out the holes in his claim of self defense, and pointing out how the systme seemd to have dropped the ball up to this point, and lining to the new federal investigation...

...You think you'll just roll in here and simply make up a fake claim about what I'm thinking and then build up strawmen about 'stalking minors is OK with you'...?

And I'm supposed to fall for that, and more importantly ignore every single thing about the legal system in this country because you've 'carried concealed'?

That's what you want to insult me with? Just a complete fabricaton that is the opposite of all I've posted here? Seriously? Seriously?? That's all you've got?

It would almost be worth getting infracted to tell you what you can do with that nonsense.