Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

Not likely. The screams heard on the audio sounded like someone in pain, thus consistant with very great fear for his own life.

The cries for help end immediately upon the firing of one shot. If he were really in full posession of his witis, he would know that he needed to keep up the act. I see no indication that the sorry SOB was that bright, given the kinds of crap for which he had been calling 911.

Nothing was said about that advice requiring anyone to be bright.

The first 'Helps' sound like someone taking in extra air to project, the last ones sound shrill... from fear, exhaustion, or from hysteria, is unknown.

As I said earlier, looking at possible scenarios is one thing... ruling them out this early without all the facts is another.

Note that one of the 911 callers said that there were people outside yelling within seconds of the shot... have we heard reliable accounts from those (presumable) witnesses?

 

[Travis]

Did you hurt yourself moving those goalposts?

Your specific claim was that the law was intentionally written to allow people to commit the crime of murder openly and with impunity as long as they invoked that magic phrase 'stand your ground'. That assertion was wrong, the law does not say what you claimed it said.

Now you have moved onto an entirely different subject (and one I already brought up here) whether or not the law is applied perfectly No one is making that claim, and it is irrational to go from imperfect application to 'the law says murder is legal'.

I'm not sure it is possible for one person to be more wrong on something. I never said the law was intentionally written to make murder legal. I noted that it is a consequence of the law.

Not at all. You, and the Sanford PD are applying it incorrectly.



I used that as an example. Back before the SYG law went into effect, they had to be in your house. Physically in your house, and you had to try to escape first.

Same applies if I am at the ATM, and some guy tries to rob me at gunpoint. Before SYG went into effect, I had to try to run first. If I couldn't, then I could use deadly force. SYG removed that requirement.

Two things:

1) It seems many are trying to give this abomination of a law a pass because the local police department is not using it in the manner it was intended. Well a law that can be abused in such a way by a corrupt police force is not much use now is it?

2) It also sounds like many are saying that because the previous law was flawed (needing to try and flee your own home is stupid) this new flawed law was needed. Which is wrong. You are supposed to replace flawed laws with better ones. This new law fails simply because of the fact that it allows you to initiate the situation that leads to violence. Remember it had specific wording that a person is still allowed to shoot even if they were the ones "escalating" the situation.

 

[crimresearch]

Right. But that article is specifically about the girlfriends call. The transition from paragraph 3 to paragraph 4 (2 to 3 below) in that article is very misleading:

I would guess that 'recorded' was journalistic fumbling with the language.

 

[leftysergeant]

The calls would be important to address the claim that Zimmerman was just standing there at his truck looking at a street sign when he was suddenly attacked from behind.

An overly-officious SOB who keeps calling the police about things that he claims look wrong in his neighborhood has to get out of his truck to see where he is? Does that idiot take us to be as stupid as he is? There is no way he can claim not to know where he was in that limited space, after claiming to know whether things looked right or not there.

Anything is possible, but I'd be surprised if the calls weren't admitted.

For damned sure, they need to admit and thoroughly test and analyse the audio of the cries for help.

If it is Martin, I would say that there is a good case for Murder One.

No way in hell you could legally say that you feared for your life when you are chasing down a person who never showed you a weapon.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure it is possible for one person to be more wrong on something. I never said the law was intentionally written to make murder legal. I noted that it is a consequence of the law.

Two things:

1) It seems many are trying to give this abomination of a law a pass because the local police department is not using it in the manner it was intended. Well a law that can be abused in such a way by a corrupt police force is not much use now is it?

2) It also sounds like many are saying that because the previous law was flawed (needing to try and flee your own home is stupid) this new flawed law was needed. Which is wrong. You are supposed to replace flawed laws with better ones. This new law fails simply because of the fact that it allows you to initiate the situation that leads to violence. Remember it had specific wording that a person is still allowed to shoot even if they were the ones "escalating" the situation.

Good post. And those screaming that the law won't make it harder to prosecute in cases such as this are ignoring legal experts who way it will. I've posted links to those experts on a couple of occasions and they are ignored. I'm not impressed with folks who simply brow beat others and refuse to listen to opposing arguments.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't know much about US law - I was being hyperbolic, but I do think that the way the 'stand your ground' law has been put to me, it seems easier to murder someone and claim self defence than I think it should be - Yes, I know that's vague as hell, but that law almost seems designed for rich people to be permitted to shoot poor people who have the temerity to walk through upmarket neighbourhoods. (yes, I know, more hype )


You're right about the police in this instance - total shambles as far as I can see. What are the odds of heads rolling?

...but that law almost seems designed for rich people to be permitted to shoot poor people who have the temerity to walk through upmarket neighbourhoods

That would be the old 'shall issue' CCW laws, where it was up to the local good old boy Sheriff to approve gun permits for the 'right' people, and where some people were required to run away before defending themselves... unless they had a 'castle' to defend.

The history of 'gun control' has been elitist to the core, while the the recent developments in the right to self defense, up through the Heller and McDonald rulings, have been about equal access.

And again, just because the laws are imperfect, or bad people do bad things under them, is not sufficient reason to go back to the old days.

 

[Unabogie]

Didn't one of the neighbors say that Zimmerman obsessively drove in circles through the neighborhood on his "watch"? If that's true, isn't that yet another reason why he'd never have to get out to look at the signs to know where he was? I can tell you all the crossstreets around my house. And I don't typically just drive in circles around it.

 

[RandFan]

"F***ing phones, they always get in the way." would be my defense...

Here's an interesting link. Voice range equalized up, repeats three times with the third iteration slowed to 75% of speed, pitch preserved. Sounds like you are right to me.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not sure it is possible for one person to be more wrong on something. I never said the law was intentionally written to make murder legal. I noted that it is a consequence of the law.



Two things:

1) It seems many are trying to give this abomination of a law a pass because the local police department is not using it in the manner it was intended. Well a law that can be abused in such a way by a corrupt police force is not much use now is it?

2) It also sounds like many are saying that because the previous law was flawed (needing to try and flee your own home is stupid) this new flawed law was needed. Which is wrong. You are supposed to replace flawed laws with better ones. This new law fails simply because of the fact that it allows you to initiate the situation that leads to violence. Remember it had specific wording that a person is still allowed to shoot even if they were the ones "escalating" the situation.

Anyone who cares to can scroll back and read your exact words, and then compare them to your new claims.

And where exactly in the Florida statutes does that 'specific wording', particularly the one you put in quotation marks, appear?

Florida Statutes 776.012
Florida Statutes 776.013

 

[crimresearch]

Didn't one of the neighbors say that Zimmerman obsessively drove in circles through the neighborhood on his "watch"? If that's true, isn't that yet another reason why he'd never have to get out to look at the signs to know where he was? I can tell you all the crossstreets around my house. And I don't typically just drive in circles around it.

I would hope that some investigator at FDLE is going though every one of Zimmerman's previous calls and establishing just how well he knew the neighborhoods.

 

[RandFan]

And again, just because the laws are imperfect, or bad people do bad things under them, is not sufficient reason to go back to the old days.

That the old laws were bad isn't sufficient reason to keep this piece of **** law.

 

[crimresearch]

The published police report is apparently from the regular beat cops who initially responded. They would not normally do the questioning of a subject under investigation. It's perfectly normal for this report to state that they did not question Zimmerman, imo. A detective or investigator would be doing such questioning after the subject was taken to the station.

A beat cop attempting such questioning on the scene would very likely ruin any case.

The beat cops also would not do any alcohol testing at the scene either, as far as I know. The case would be too important for them to do the regular tests they might do on a DUI suspect.

That doesn't add up. What published police report? Since when are there cops walking a beat in that community? Since when were detectives and the OSC not present?

They had the shooter at the station for hours, and didn't get the most basic evidence.

Whether the ball was dropped, or there was some sooper-seekrit evidence completely exonerating the shooter, it was in the hands of at least some of the higher-ups at some point.

 

[sadhatter]

That the old laws were bad isn't sufficient reason to keep this piece of **** law.

You know, i believe the only thing holding this law back is the incredible subjective nature of the "reasonable" bit.

I think, in premise it is a good law, conflicts can be won or lost with the first blow, and you should not be put in a legal position that you have to essentially give someone the first blow in order to not be charged. If someone is acting in a threatening manner, they are either A) trying to scare you or B) legitimately going to hurt you. Either way, they know the consequences of their actions may not be your immediate surrender, and are choosing to engage in the situation.

The problem comes in when people refuse to quantify, in any way, what reasonable would include. The word reasonable should not be anywhere in this law, it should be a defined set of circumstances common to confrontations.

Self defense laws are broken by their very nature, assuming people arn't around to witness, everyone always has the option of trying to claim self defense. But there are really no better options, and saying that someone has to strike a blow before you can stop them from harming you, or that you must attempt escape ( imagine trying to get away from someone, and hitting a broken or locked door, or having to turn your back upon someone who is menacing you with a gun to run away.) is simply creating a situation in which victims are at a severe disadvantage.

And in regards to this case in specific, this man is abusing, not using this law. If anything the law was written for folks like Martin, who are engaged with someone who wants to harass and threaten in order to provoke a confrontation, in order to hide behind the law. ( more frequently this is used in simple physical altercations as a scumbag tactic.)

 

[RandFan]

You know, i believe the only thing holding this law back is the incredible subjective nature of the "reasonable" bit.

I think, in premise it is a good law, conflicts can be won or lost with the first blow, and you should not be put in a legal position that you have to essentially give someone the first blow in order to not be charged. If someone is acting in a threatening manner, they are either A) trying to scare you or B) legitimately going to hurt you. Either way, they know the consequences of their actions may not be your immediate surrender, and are choosing to engage in the situation.

The problem comes in when people refuse to quantify, in any way, what reasonable would include. The word reasonable should not be anywhere in this law, it should be a defined set of circumstances common to confrontations.

Self defense laws are broken by their very nature, assuming people arn't around to witness, everyone always has the option of trying to claim self defense. But there are really no better options, and saying that someone has to strike a blow before you can stop them from harming you, or that you must attempt escape ( imagine trying to get away from someone, and hitting a broken or locked door, or having to turn your back upon someone who is menacing you with a gun to run away.) is simply creating a situation in which victims are at a severe disadvantage.

And in regards to this case in specific, this man is abusing, not using this law. If anything the law was written for folks like Martin, who are engaged with someone who wants to harass and threaten in order to provoke a confrontation, in order to hide behind the law. ( more frequently this is used in simple physical altercations as a scumbag tactic.)

Thanks. Good post.

 

[LTC8K6]

That doesn't add up. What published police report? Since when are there cops walking a beat in that community? Since when were detectives and the OSC not present?

They had the shooter at the station for hours, and didn't get the most basic evidence.

Whether the ball was dropped, or there was some sooper-seekrit evidence completely exonerating the shooter, it was in the hands of at least some of the higher-ups at some point.

I'm going to be careful about trusting what is reported in the media.

I'm referring to complaints about what happened at the scene. You wouldn't normally question the supposed perp at the scene as far as I know. You would take witness statements and take the perp downtown to be questioned.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf

Twin Lakes PD initial report. Looks boringly normal for an initial investigation of a shooting.

Remember that there is a heavy presumption of innocence towards Zimmerman, and a heavy burden of proof on any DA trying to prosecute.

It is nowhere near enough for it to look or seem like Zimmerman murdered Martin.

 

[Caper]

You know, i believe the only thing holding this law back is the incredible subjective nature of the "reasonable" bit.

I think, in premise it is a good law, conflicts can be won or lost with the first blow, and you should not be put in a legal position that you have to essentially give someone the first blow in order to not be charged. If someone is acting in a threatening manner, they are either A) trying to scare you or B) legitimately going to hurt you. Either way, they know the consequences of their actions may not be your immediate surrender, and are choosing to engage in the situation.

The problem comes in when people refuse to quantify, in any way, what reasonable would include. The word reasonable should not be anywhere in this law, it should be a defined set of circumstances common to confrontations.

Self defense laws are broken by their very nature, assuming people arn't around to witness, everyone always has the option of trying to claim self defense. But there are really no better options, and saying that someone has to strike a blow before you can stop them from harming you, or that you must attempt escape ( imagine trying to get away from someone, and hitting a broken or locked door, or having to turn your back upon someone who is menacing you with a gun to run away.) is simply creating a situation in which victims are at a severe disadvantage.

And in regards to this case in specific, this man is abusing, not using this law. If anything the law was written for folks like Martin, who are engaged with someone who wants to harass and threaten in order to provoke a confrontation, in order to hide behind the law. ( more frequently this is used in simple physical altercations as a scumbag tactic.)

Smart post.

 

[BStrong]

Everything I've read thus far points to a bad shoot.

 

[Resume]

Everything I've read thus far points to a bad shoot.

Don't see how you can get around it.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm going to be careful about trusting what is reported in the media.

I'm referring to complaints about what happened at the scene. You wouldn't normally question the supposed perp at the scene as far as I know. You would take witness statements and take the perp downtown to be questioned.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Twin Lakes PD initial report. Looks boringly normal for an initial investigation of a shooting.

Remember that there is a heavy presumption of innocence towards Zimmerman, and a heavy burden of proof on any DA trying to prosecute.

It is nowhere near enough for it to look or seem like Zimmerman murdered Martin.

Thanks for that, since I hadn't seen the original report.

A few things of note:

1. The description of Zimmerman as being "white" comes from this police report and not "the media".
2. Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. I'm curious how he says this happened. Either they had a scuffle or it was self inflicted. The blood could also have been Martin's, but no information is in that report. A scuffle could help support self defense (but only a little)
3. The gun was taken into evidence. I'd seen someone say Zimmerman was free to go with his gun, but for at least some period of time the gun was in police custody. Did they do any tests? Did they give it back to Zimmerman when they let him go a few hours later?

 

[RandFan]

Everything I've read thus far points to a bad shoot.

Don't see how you can get around it.

Yep.