Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

From what I understand from the attorney for the Martin family stated that the SPD never did run a background check.

Could she be lying? Sure. Could the SPD? More likely. Sanford PD has been known to fudge doing investigations.

How would one know whether they ran a background check?

This is what happened, imo. Martin's father misinterpreted the investigator's "squeaky clean" comment, as stated in the police document.

From that, the father has leaped to the conclusion that they did not run a background check, because the police said he was "squeaky clean".

Except the police never said that. They said Zimmerman claimed it.

The police did run the check, imo. They were fully aware of Zimmerman's records from the get go, imo.

The flap about the background check is coming from a misunderstanding by Martin's father, imo.

 

[triforcharity]

Also, since he was a concealed carry permit holder, one could argue that the standard should be what a reasonable CCW permit holder would do. Generally, more discretion is expected of CCW holders, since they undergo training to get the permit. I imagine most CCW permit holders would agree that with the permit comes increased responsibility for safety. I'm not sure of this, so I invite CCW holders to opine, but my impression is that CCW holders are expected to be mindful of their situation, and to avoid needlessly escalating a situation to the point where force is necessary. I imagine that CCW holders hate nothing more than a CCW holder with the sort of "make-my-day" attitude that Zimmerman appears to have exhibited here.

Absolutely! Without one shred of doubt, I hold myself to be more cautious in any situation. I have never had to draw my weapon out while in public*. If I were to draw my weapon, I know that one of two things is GOING to happen.

Either A) I am going to fire that weapon at minimum of twice, aiming towards center mass, or B) the offender is going to cease whatever he was doing immediately, lay on the ground, and surrender.

There is no if's, and's, or but's about it. One of those two are GOING to happen. I do not WANT to put myself in ANY situation where I would NEED to fire my weapon. If I saw a suspicious person in my neighborhood, I would call the cops and observe and report. If the person ran, I would CONTINUE to observe and report, from a distance.

If the person was breaking into my neighbor's heart, I would do exactly the same. I would observe and report.

If the person was murdering my neighbor, that person has two choices after I pull my weapon. Cease immediately, or meet his maker.

Plain and simple.

I would NOT under ANY circumstances put myself in a situation where it COULD be escalated to where I would need to use my weapon.

 

[Freddy]

From what I understand from the attorney for the Martin family stated that the SPD never did run a background check.

Could she be lying? Sure. Could the SPD? More likely. Sanford PD has been known to fudge doing investigations.

In my view, without the information from Martin's girlfriend, the police were reasonable in declining to arrest Zimmerman at the time. However, they knew early on that Martin was on the phone just before the shooting, and they should have held Zimmerman at least until they had spoken to the person on the other end of that call.

I think the problem with Florida's SYG law is not the legal substance, but rather the procedural impediments it places on investigations. I'm not saying that the police handled this properly even in light of the SYG law (see my post a few posts up), but the law does appear to limit the police's ability to gather exactly the sort of evidence needed in order to determine whether the use of force complied with the law.

This is the sort of error that legislators are prone to make: they tend to be fairly diligent as to the substantive law, but they are less able to comprehend the procedural consequences of the language they are adopting. I agree with the substance of SYG laws, but this particular law, as written, arguably goes beyond what its legislative sponsors intended.

I base that last claim on public statements by some of the legislators who supported the SYG law. They say that they never intended the law to cover this sort of situation. They also say it does not cover this situation. I agree with both claims, actually, but as to the latter it is way too close a call for comfort, and confusion is understandable. It is sufficiently unclear that I am not at all certain my interpretation would be shared by a reviewing court. That is a serious problem. The law needs to be amended to define more clearly the circumstances in which the use of deadly force is permissible.

I sense that there is push-back from gun-rights folks because they perceive an assault on the idea of SYG. While I understand that, and while it is true that some people have responded to this tragedy by attacking the concept of SYG in general, or even the concept of gun-ownership in general, the response needs to acknowledge that the law needs to be amended for clarity at least, even if not in substance.

 

[Freddy]

Absolutely! Without one shred of doubt, I hold myself to be more cautious in any situation. I have never had to draw my weapon out while in public*. If I were to draw my weapon, I know that one of two things is GOING to happen.

Either A) I am going to fire that weapon at minimum of twice, aiming towards center mass, or B) the offender is going to cease whatever he was doing immediately, lay on the ground, and surrender.

There is no if's, and's, or but's about it. One of those two are GOING to happen. I do not WANT to put myself in ANY situation where I would NEED to fire my weapon. If I saw a suspicious person in my neighborhood, I would call the cops and observe and report. If the person ran, I would CONTINUE to observe and report, from a distance.

If the person was breaking into my neighbor's heart, I would do exactly the same. I would observe and report.

If the person was murdering my neighbor, that person has two choices after I pull my weapon. Cease immediately, or meet his maker.

Plain and simple.

I would NOT under ANY circumstances put myself in a situation where it COULD be escalated to where I would need to use my weapon.

A couple more questions:

I would think it is a big no-no to get into any sort of physical altercation while armed, because if you get in a fight, the other guy might end up with your gun even if you don't draw it. In other words, doesn't any fight become life-or-death by virtue of your having a sidearm? And wouldn't any reasonable concealed carrier maintain a minimum distance from any perceived threat? So didn't Zimmerman also screw up badly just by being close enough for a fight to occur, even if he did not throw the first blow? After all, he was following Martin and did not need to get close enough for physical contact to be possible. It seems to me that a physical tussle could only have happened if Zimmerman acted in a manner that CCW holders are trained not to.

 

[crimresearch]

A couple more questions:

I would think it is a big no-no to get into any sort of physical altercation while armed, because if you get in a fight, the other guy might end up with your gun even if you don't draw it. In other words, doesn't any fight become life-or-death by virtue of your having a sidearm? And wouldn't any reasonable concealed carrier maintain a minimum distance from any perceived threat? So didn't Zimmerman also screw up badly just by being close enough for a fight to occur, even if he did not throw the first blow? After all, he was following Martin and did not need to get close enough for physical contact to be possible. It seems to me that a physical tussle could only have happened if Zimmerman acted in a manner that CCW holders are trained not to.

Yes. A simple conflict that might have ended with words or shoving, turning into a shootout, or having to retain one's own weapon are some of the unintended consequences that go hand in glove with carrying.

In the short time span of a typical CCW class, they are very low priority.

 

[crimresearch]

On the notion that self defense laws are a get out of jail free card... not only is Zimmerman far from getting away with anything, neither did other people trying the same assertions.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...imed-self-defense-convicted-of-murder/1150772

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...y-of-manslaughter-third-degree-murder/1217945



Some of the claims being made in this thread do no honor to the dead man or to the truth.

 

[RandFan]

Some of the claims being made in this thread do no honor to the dead man or to the truth.

A.) Appeal to shame (fallacy). B.) A number of legal scholars are arguing that the Florida law will make it difficult to get a conviction.

Trying to silence people who are involved in a discussion through such appeals and in the face of expert testimony is not conducive to the dialectic. You say you don't have a side, okay, then how about being on the side of fostering discussion and debate? You may very well be right but it's not as if there is no basis for a discussion of the merits of the law.

 

[crimresearch]

A.) Appeal to shame (fallacy). B.) A number of legal scholars are arguing that the Florida law will make it difficult to get a conviction.

Trying to silence people who are involved in a discussion through such appeals and in the face of expert testimony is not conducive to the dialectic. You say you don't have a side, okay, then how about being on the side of fostering discussion and debate? You may very well be right but it's not as if there is no basis for a discussion of the merits of the law.

Except I'm not addressing 'difficulty', I'm responding to the claims that people are able to commit murder with impunity. I've pointed out the difficulties in the past... oh, but that's right, you are refusing to read anything I posted before, and just making up the claim that I'm blindly supporting Zimmerman in every post.

Go ahead and prove that the links I posted are 'fallacies'

Go ahead and prove that the jails in Florida are empty now because crooks are wise to this 'say self defense and you're immune from arrest' law.


A bunch of media 'pundits' are boosting profits by spreading sensationalized propaganda, and the masses are eating up the gossip as always... just like the sensationalized case before this, and before that one, and before that one...

Go ahead and prove how it 'honors' either the dead person or the truth to parrot that incorrect and irrational rumor mongering.

 

[RandFan]

Ruling Yesterday Cites SYG

Miami judge tosses case based on Stand Your Ground

MIAMI -- A Miami judge tossed a second-degree murder case, citing Florida's Stand Your Ground law.


Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom granted 25-year-old Greyston Garcia immunity under the 2005 law Wednesday after ruling his testimony about self-defense was credible. Garcia was charged with killing a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January.


The Miami Herald ( http://bit.ly/GKXg1g) reports Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford was stunned by the judge's ruling.



The decision comes as controversy swirls around the killing of an unarmed Miami Gardens teen by a central Florida neighborhood watch captain. Sanford police have cited the law in their decision not to arrest George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.


In the Miami case, surveillance video captured the stabbing of the suspect, who carrying a bag of stolen radios but no weapon.​

The article doesn't state what evidence the judge used to decide that the claim of self defense was credible. There was video tape so perhaps that is the basis.
​

 

[RandFan]

... you are refusing to read anything I posted before, and just making stuff up, right?

I don't refuse to. I'm happy to read anything you write. I'm not going to search the thread looking for everyone of your posts.

Are you still basing all of this on the notion that there is nothing about the law for you to learn?

?

Your opinions and the media is all you need??

?

What's with the straw men? These are not my positions.

Go ahead and prove that the links I posted are 'fallacies'

The appeal to shame/guilt is the fallacy and that speaks for itself.

Go ahead and prove that the jails in Florida are empty now because crooks are wise to this 'say self defense and you're immune from arrest' law.

Straw man.

A bunch of media 'pundits' are boosting profits by spreading sensationalized propaganda, and the masses are eating up the gossip as always... just like the sensationalized case before this, and before that one, and before that one...

Ad hominem.

Go ahead and prove how it 'honors' either the dead person or the truth to parrot that incorrect and irrational rumor mongering.

Straw man, appeal to shame.

Crim, I've known you a long time. I have respect for you. This is really beneath you. I don't know why you are so upset with me. You seem to have a view of me that is entirely wrong.

• I want what is in your sig file.
• I want what is in my sig file (I don't have a side either).
• Nothing more. Nothing less.
• Trying to silence discussion and debate through shame and other fallacies isn't helping and it's not at all in keeping with your stated goals.

Please, dial it down a notch, take a deep breath and don't make assumption about me. Whatever I did or said to offend you I apologize.

 

[RandFan]

Are you still basing all of this on the notion that there is nothing about the law for you to learn?

Your opinions and the media is all you need??

If that were true I wouldn't be paying such close attention to triforcharity and I would not have said the following to him.

triforcharity

While I honestly do not know how SYG will affect the case, I'll say this. You have provided some great responses and information. Some very compelling stuff.

Thank you.

The personal attack is entirely unfair. Again, whatever I did or said to offend you I apologize. Hey, let's have a discussion and extend the philosophical principle of charity to each other, fair enough?

 

[crimresearch]

The article doesn't state what evidence the judge used to decide that the claim of self defense was credible. There was video tape so perhaps that is the basis.
[/LEFT]

So a real case of self defense backed up with credible evidence that the judge followed the rules of evidence to determine, is your proof that SYG is letting murderers get away with murder?

And you want to fling around claims of 'fallacy' about other people?

 

[RandFan]

So a real case of self defense backed up with credible evidence that the judge followed the rules of evidence to determine, is your proof that SYG is letting murderers get away with murder?

Did I say it was proof? Where? Straw man.

And you want to fling around claims of 'fallacy' about other people?

crim, you are operating fast and loose with the fallacies. There is no controversy about that. I never said the case was proof of anything. In fact I said that the judge very well could have valid evidence and I noted the video tape evidence.

Seriously, whatever has got you worked up is blinding you to the facts. Your view of me is wrong. For the third time I will say that I'm sorry for whatever it was I did or say that upset you.

Can you dial it down a notch?

 

[Freddy]

A.) Appeal to shame (fallacy). B.) A number of legal scholars are arguing that the Florida law will make it difficult to get a conviction.

Trying to silence people who are involved in a discussion through such appeals and in the face of expert testimony is not conducive to the dialectic. You say you don't have a side, okay, then how about being on the side of fostering discussion and debate? You may very well be right but it's not as if there is no basis for a discussion of the merits of the law.

Fair enough, although in the abstract making it more difficult to get a conviction is not always a defect in a law. I think the particular statute in question is problematic because it severely restricts the ability of police to detain a suspect and gather evidence that is relevant to the question of whether the use of force in a particular case was lawful. I take that to be an unintended effect of the wording of the Florida law, given what sponsors of the law have said about this case.

Where I think some critics go wrong is in perceiving this as an inherent problem with SYG laws. I would say that the Florida law is at least insufficiently clear as to when use of deadly force is lawful, and that may well make it harder to achieve a just outcome in this case. But I would also say that the problem can be remedied without reinstating the duty to retreat.

I believe the law can be interpreted as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread, and that if it is interpreted as I think it should be, it will not be the major impediment to conviction that some scholars fear it will be. However, I readily concede that my interpretation is not the only plausible one. As I see it, the question turns on whether the law requires reasonable behavior at all points as the situation unfolds, or only reasonableness of the fear of death once a confrontation has been initiated. I would argue for the former, and I think if the law is interpreted that way then Zimmerman is toast, SYG notwithstanding. I think that Zimmerman's actions, taken as a whole, were manifestly unreasonable given the fact that Zimmerman had not witnessed Martin committing any crime, much less a crime that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to anyone.

I do, however, concede that even if a court ends up agreeing with my interpretation, the SYG law should have been (and should amended to be) more explicit that action as aggressive as Zimmerman's is justified only if one has directly witnessed a violent crime in progress, or if one is defending oneself from a violent crime in progress.

 

[RandFan]

BTW:

So a real case of self defense backed up with credible evidence that the judge followed the rules of evidence to determine...

You don't know that for a fact. That is not in evidence (in this thread AFAIK). We only know that the judge claimed that it was credible. The article also says, "Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford was stunned by the judge's ruling." Apparently the police Sgt differed with the judge. Why? We don't know. Right?

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough, although in the abstract making it more difficult to get a conviction is not always a defect in a law. I think the particular statute in question is problematic because it severely restricts the ability of police to detain a suspect and gather evidence that is relevant to the question of whether the use of force in a particular case was lawful. I take that to be an unintended effect of the wording of the Florida law, given what sponsors of the law have said about this case.

Where I think some critics go wrong is in perceiving this as an inherent problem with SYG laws. I would say that the Florida law is at least insufficiently clear as to when use of deadly force is lawful, and that may well make it harder to achieve a just outcome in this case. But I would also say that the problem can be remedied without reinstating the duty to retreat.

I believe the law can be interpreted as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread, and that if it is interpreted as I think it should be, it will not be the major impediment to conviction that some scholars fear it will be. However, I readily concede that my interpretation is not the only plausible one. As I see it, the question turns on whether the law requires reasonable behavior at all points as the situation unfolds, or only reasonableness of the fear of death once a confrontation has been initiated. I would argue for the former, and I think if the law is interpreted that way then Zimmerman is toast, SYG notwithstanding. I think that Zimmerman's actions, taken as a whole, were manifestly unreasonable given the fact that Zimmerman had not witnessed Martin committing any crime, much less a crime that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to anyone.

I do, however, concede that even if a court ends up agreeing with my interpretation, the SYG law should have been (and should amended to be) more explicit that action as aggressive as Zimmerman's is justified only if one has directly witnessed a violent crime in progress, or if one is defending oneself from a violent crime in progress.

Thank you.

I've stated time and time again that I'm not a legal expert. I honestly do not know. I have argued against a hypothetical, "if the law does as Toobin and other experts have claimed then the it's bad law.

I honestly don't know if it does. Sitting here right now I cannot tell you one way or the other. I've never claimed expert knowledge or certainty as to what the law say. I DID say I was convinced, that was wrong on my part. I was expressing my strong disfavor of the law assuming the claims. I should have added a caveat. My bad.

I want to be part of the discussion. I also came here to let off some steam. not to win a debate.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't refuse to. I'm happy to read anything you write. I'm not going to search the thread looking for everyone of your posts.

?

?

What's with the straw men? These are not my positions.

The appeal to shame/guilt is the fallacy and that speaks for itself.
Straw man.

Ad hominem.

Straw man, appeal to shame.

Crim, I've known you a long time. I have respect for you. This is really beneath you. I don't know why you are so upset with me. You seem to have a view of me that is entirely wrong.

• I want what is in your sig file.
• I want what is in my sig file (I don't have a side either).
• Nothing more. Nothing less.
• Trying to silence discussion and debate through shame and other fallacies isn't helping and it's not at all in keeping with your stated goals.

Please, dial it down a notch, take a deep breath and don't make assumption about me. Whatever I did or said to offend you I apologize.

I'm calling you on this, because after I spent page after page of my free time trying to combat the lynch mob hysteria with legal facts and references, you showed up and immmediately start this game of claiming that I was defending Zimmerman, along with the rest of the tired old internet debate tricks you're using here again tonight... like calling facts fallacies, and an accurate descroption of the factual history of media sensationalism, 'ad hominems', along with a fraudulent and insulting claim that I'm trying to silence anyone by providing factual links.

 

[Freddy]

Thank you.

I've stated time and time again that I'm not a legal expert. I honestly do not know. I have argued against a hypothetical, "if the law does as Toobin and other experts have claimed then the it's bad law.

I honestly don't know if it does. Sitting here right now I cannot tell you one way or the other. I've never claimed expert knowledge or certainty as to what the law say. I DID say I was convinced, that was wrong on my part. I was expressing my strong disfavor of the law assuming the claims. I should have added a caveat. My bad.

I want to be part of the discussion. I also came here to let off some steam. not to win a debate.

Well, I don't consider myself an expert either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

As I alluded to earlier, at least one sponsor of Florida's SYG law has publicly said that the law was not meant to protect what Zimmerman did here, and that he does not think it does protect Zimmerman's behavior. That isn't dispositive of what the law means, of course, because it is the statute, and not the legislative intent, that is enacted into law. But still, it does indicate that if Zimmerman gets away with this, there will be bipartisan support for amending the SYG law. Which is something, at least.

 

[RandFan]

...you showed up and immmediately start this game of claiming that I was defending Zimmerman...

A.) Three times now I've apologized. Let me make this the 4th. I'm sorry. B.) I honestly don't remember doing that.

...like calling facts fallacies...

Demonstrably incorrect. Wrong. I'm calling you on it. I did no such thing.

...and an accurate descroption of the factual history of media sensationalism, 'ad hominems', along with a fraudulent and insulting claim that I'm trying to silence anyone by providing factual links.

Your fallacies are easy to demonstrate. You appealed to shame. That's a fact.

I never called your facts fallacies. I called your error in logic fallacies. Ad hominem poisoning the well (you attacked the legal pundits). That's a fallacy. You accused me of arguments I never made. That's a fallacy.

• I apologized 3 times without knowing your complaint.
• I've apologized a 4th time without demanding you prove your accusation.

Can we move on?

 

[crimresearch]

You don't know that for a fact. That is not in evidence (in this thread AFAIK). We only know that the judge claimed that it was credible. The article also says, "Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford was stunned by the judge's ruling." Apparently the police Sgt differed with the judge. Why? We don't know. Right?

What I 'know for a fact' is that the 'rules of evidence' are the codified law, a part of the statutes. Again, you simply claiming that I *don't* know that (especially after I've cited them in this thread) is far from convincicing.

Questioning whether or not this judge broke those laws, and ran the trial improperly by allowing some form of tainted evidence to be admitted and ruled credible would require some extreme proof. A police Sgt not liking a verdict isn't enough.