Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

I have learned two things from this thread.

1. Don't knock on a door late at night in Florida. Apparelntly you can be shot with no consequenses for the shooter.

2. In florida, if you don't like someone, all you have to do is get them on their own with no witnesses about, shoot them, then claim self defence.

I am not going to Florida.

I would be much more concerned about the way they drive in Florida.

 

[crimresearch]

As I said, the fact that large numbers of black people, and their allies are complaining that this sort of thing goes on all the time, is proof that black people love to play "the race card", and certainly not evidence that perhaps the US long and well-known habit of persecuted black people hasn't quite ended yet.

If by this sort of thing, you mean the impression that some victims are less important than others, that card was put on the table long ago... and not by the victims.

 

[RandFan]

There is a bit of speculation in your argument. You are suggesting that Zimmerman knew the outcome was going to result in a death before beginning the pursuit. In the 911 call, after Zimmerman said he didn't want to say his address outloud, he asked if the police could call him, when they arrived, so he could say where he was. That, at least implies that Zimmerman's intent was to follow Martin and give police his location. There is still, as far as I know, zero evidence as to exactly what went down between the end of the phone call and the fatal shot.

I used the qualifier "likely". He had a gun. He knew that death was a real possibility. Since there was no crime and no imminent danger then he had no basis to do that. Which is why I have said manslaughter not murder. His actions were reckless and without cause.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, but you are talking about reasonable, and that will be for the jury to decide, of the judge if a bench trial is chosen; if there is a trial.

It depends exactly on what they think.

I'm not speaking as if I know will find anything. I accept he is entitled to a jury by his peers. If found innocent I will accept that. IMO he acted recklessly and his actions resulted in death.

Sorry RF, that is a statement of opinion (and one I agree with), statute in FL mat not cover this and again it will come down to a jury or judge deciding at what point reasonable became unseasonable.

For full disclosure, this case really really really bothers me a whole lot.

My son is seventeen.

Yes, it's my opinion. I said in an earlier post I came to this thread to offer an opinion and to get information. I could have that opinion changed. In any event, I'm reasonably confident that it's not okay to act in a reckless manner that results in the death of another. I'm not sure what is controversial about that. Now, what I think is okay and what the law is and the prosecution can prove are two very different things.

I made clear from the beginning that I honestly don't know how a trial would turn out or how SYG will affect the outcome. I just think any law that allows for people to recklessly harm or kill another is rather asinine. I'm not sure how that opinion could change or why others would disagree.

 

[sgtbaker]

Appreciated. I think you guys just have far too many bullets over there. Rampant bullet production needs to be curbed.

My point is that the law in Florida seems to make it remarkably easy to get away with murder, provided you have a CCP and you're smart enough.

That really, really scares me.

This law is not unique to Florida.

 

[000063]

If by this sort of thing, you mean the impression that some victims are less important than others, that card was put on the table long ago... and not by the victims.

But, apparently, many have no problem playing it when it dealt into their hand.

For the record, I'm not okay with generalizations about black people either.

 

[sgtbaker]

I used the qualifier "likely". He had a gun. He knew that death was a real possibility. Since there was no crime and no imminent danger then he had no basis to do that. Which is why I have said manslaughter not murder. His actions were reckless and without cause.

I understand but even "likely" is over reaching. Apparently, he's called and reported "suspicious" people 47 times since Jan of 2011. None of them resulted in a death. Like I said, the conversation with the dispatcher implies (doesn't confirm) that his intent was to have a definite location of the individual when the police arrived. Adding anything more is speculation.

 

[3point14]

This law is not unique to Florida.

I appreciate that, but it's Florida under discussion here, so the statement stands.

 

[RandFan]

I understand but even "likely" is over reaching. Apparently, he's called and reported "suspicious" people 47 times since Jan of 2011. None of them resulted in a death. Like I said, the conversation with the dispatcher implies (doesn't confirm) that his intent was to have a definite location of the individual when the police arrived. Adding anything more is speculation.

Facts:

• No crime had been committed.
• No basis that a crime was about to be committed existed.
• There was no imminent danger.
• He had a gun.
• He was instructed not to pursue the victim.
• He pursued the victim.

No speculation needed. He acted recklessly. If he didn't know that death was a real possibility (IMO likely) then he should have left the gun in the car. Right? What reason did he have to put the victims life in danger?

 

[sadhatter]

I hadn't seen this particular claim before. From your link ...




Mr. Neighborhood Watch Superhero who prowls the area regularly and calls the police on a nearly weekly basis doesn't know what street he's on?

Sure. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A teenager he outweighs by 100 lbs. who is walking home from the store attacks him out of the blue with no provocation ... from behind? A teenager he had already claimed he was following?

Okayyy.

Who could question any of that?

If the kid could sneak up on a paranoid guy, let alone one who was actively following him, i think we solved the issue. The kid was Drizzit, and this guy wanted to collect some kind of bounty.

Seriously, what a lame excuse, and a fantasy esque situation to try and say happened.

 

[RandFan]

Reckless Disregard.

The following are not specifically Florida definitions or jury instructions.

An act of proceeding to do something with a conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequences of so doing. Reckless disregard, while not necessarily suggesting an intent to cause harm, is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.

Involuntary Manslaughter involves the accidental causing of death of another person, although unintended, which death is the proximate result of negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life.

 

[Travis]

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?

If we were in Florida I could attack you and if you fight back I could shoot you. And the law the NRA pushed for says it is all nice and legal.

So why shouldn't I be pissed at such a group of pro-murder monsters for crafting such an abomination of a law?

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.

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.

I am skeptical that anyone would charge you with murder for shooting someone if they kick in your front door at 3AM. I know I can shoot someone for that here in Californian and we don't have anything akin to the Florida "murder anyone as long as they are fighting back" law.

 

[crimresearch]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ls-20120320_1_shooting-death-moments-abc-news

Apparently, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend just before the altercation.



That doesn't exactly paint the picture of Martin blitzing Zimmerman.
Still doesn't help much but it appears that Martin initiated conversation between the two.

And her claim is backed up by the phone logs.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ls-20120320_1_shooting-death-moments-abc-news

And I would say that Zimmerman's suspicious behavior 'initiated' Martin's perfectly reasonable response.

 

[sgtbaker]

Facts:

• No crime had been committed.
• No basis that a crime was about to be committed existed.
• There was no imminent danger.

• 
  
  Fact, the first three are only known after the occurance. At the time, Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person with something in his hand, staring at him, approaching his car at one point, with his hand in his waistbad. It's easy for you to say that there was no danger while you are reading the story as it unfolds, it's not so clear to the individual at the time
  
  

  He had a gun.

  
  I am assuming he had a gun the other 47 times he called the non emergency line.
  
  

  He was instructed not to pursue the victim.
  He pursued the victim.

  
  He was not instructed not to pursue the victim. The only thing the dispatcher said was, "we don't need you to do that, sir." However, seconds later, when the dispatcher agreed to have the officer call him when the officer arrived is kind of an indication that the dispatcher knew he was going to be moving around.
  
  

  No speculation needed. He acted recklessly. If he didn't know that death was a real possibility (IMO likely) then he should have left the gun in the car. Right? What reason did he have to put the victims life in danger?

  
  Make no mistake, Trayvon is by all accounts, a victim. Zimmerman is unquestionably morally responsible for his death. However, whether or not Zimmerman felt he was ever going to use his gun is speculation.

 

[sgtbaker]

And her claim is backed up by the phone logs.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ls-20120320_1_shooting-death-moments-abc-news

And I would say that Zimmerman's suspicious behavior 'initiated' Martin's perfectly reasonable response.

I don't think approaching someone and asking why they are following you is an act of aggression. If I gave the impression otherwise, my apologies.

 

[RandFan]

Fact, the first three are only known after the occurance.

Did Zimmerman know for a fact that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed?

At the time, Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person with something in his hand, staring at him, approaching his car at one point, with his hand in his waistbad. It's easy for you to say that there was no danger while you are reading the story as it unfolds, it's not so clear to the individual at the time

He got out of his car. He pursued the victim.

I am assuming he had a gun the other 47 times he called the non emergency line.

Not my argument. Getting out of his car to pursue an innocent person when no crime is being committed and no one is in imminent danger is reckless.

He was not instructed not to pursue the victim. The only thing the dispatcher said was, "we don't need you to do that, sir."

A distinction without a difference.

Make no mistake, Trayvon is by all accounts, a victim. Zimmerman is unquestionably morally responsible for his death. However, whether or not Zimmerman felt he was ever going to use his gun is speculation.

I don't argue that he "felt" or "knew" he was going to use his gun. The definition doesn't call for feelings or premonitions or hope or knowledge that one is going to use a gun or anything of the sort. It is simply the knowledge that you have a gun and that your actions can lead to the death of another for no cause (see definition above).

 

[WildCat]

If we were in Florida I could attack you and if you fight back I could shoot you.

No, the law doesn't say that at all.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure that believing that a property crime is being committed or is about to be committed is sufficient justification to play cop. Especially if you have a gun.

 

[crimresearch]

If we were in Florida I could attack you and if you fight back I could shoot you. And the law the NRA pushed for says it is all nice and legal.

So why shouldn't I be pissed at such a group of pro-murder monsters for crafting such an abomination of a law?[

The law says no such thing. Not even close. The law on murder in all 50 states, as derived from the Supreme Court, says that it is *not* legal to use deadly force against someone who is merely defending themselves against your illegal attack with lesser force.

Something that obviously not correct (especially after the actual laws have been explained repeatedly) in the middle of this thread where the shooter has *not* gotten away with murder, sure looks like derailing the OP with off topic propaganda IMHO.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't think approaching someone and asking why they are following you is an act of aggression. If I gave the impression otherwise, my apologies.

You didn't give that impression, I just wanted to tack on a bit of extra clarification.