Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

As noted the shooting was a far remove from the car.

Yeah, I still don't know where that supposed Zimmerman account came from. Whenever I see it, it says "the police said", but I can't find the police ever saying that.

If we take that account as accurate, as some posters have done, there is also the part in it about Martin reaching for his waistband.

IIRC, it would not be unusual to pretend that you have a gun to try to get someone who is bothering you to back off. This is done by doing a fake "reach" for a gun on your waist.

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks like the police goofed in this one too, but in the exact opposite way.

Instead of charging an innocent person of murder, they fail to charge a guilty person of murder.

Who determined that he is guilty? Or even that he should be charged?

Has the Grand Jury returned a bill to the DA already?

 

[triforcharity]

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]

I don't know much about the case, but will look more into it later.

 

[3point14]

That is the point that the SYG law addresses, in a situation where a home owner or other feels that there is a reasonable case of threat to themselves, they may fire without running away first.

Now the issue is that it is always up to a jury and the judge to decide what gets interpreted where.

I think I've explained that badly.

Triforcharity listed the two courses that would occur if he (she? - sorry) were forced to draw his weapon, which were.

1 - Two shots at centre of mass
2 - they lie down and give themselves up.

I was just trying to point out that there's a third option that they (the person without the gun, simply peg it, presenting their back to the weapon holder.

I presume at that point that the weapon will not be discharged.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, I still don't know where that supposed Zimmerman account came from. Whenever I see it, it says "the police said", but I can't find the police ever saying that.

If we take that account as accurate, as some posters have done, there is also the part in it about Martin reaching for his waistband.

IIRC, it would not be unusual to pretend that you have a gun to try to get someone who is bothering you to back off. This is done by doing a fake "reach" for a gun on your waist.

Alexw linked a to an article about the street sign from march 19th.
Police said Zimmerman told them he got out of his vehicle to get a look at a street sign, and Martin attacked him from behind.

However, the SPD has released a document that does not include anything about a street sign:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf



If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

As far as I know, the exact location of the shooting has not been released, but it appears to be about here which is not too far from the street.

 

[LTC8K6]

Alexw linked a to an article about the street sign from march 19th.
Police said Zimmerman told them he got out of his vehicle to get a look at a street sign, and Martin attacked him from behind.

However, the SPD has released a document that does not include anything about a street sign:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf



If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

As far as I know, the exact location of the shooting has not been released, but it appears to be about here which is not too far from the street.

Okay, I have seen that, but there is a longer account supposedly from Zimmerman out there. It includes a line about Martin reaching for something on his waist, or something to that effect, I believe.

If this whole account is actually from the police, then it's probably reliable as the statement Zimmerman gave to them.

 

[LTC8K6]

The waistband is mentioned in one of the 911 calls, I believe.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I would agree 100%. However, unfortunately in Florida, you only have to demonstrate that you are competent with a firearm, not that you're competent to make smart, logical decisions, and the class doesn't teach that. Unfortunately.

In other words, doesn't any fight become life-or-death by virtue of your having a sidearm?

Yes.

And wouldn't any reasonable concealed carrier maintain a minimum distance from any perceived threat?

That is the keyword. Reasonable. In my opinion, and many others that I have spoke with that have law enforcement backgrounds, Zimmerman was not "responsible" enough to have a firearm. I mean, he called the POLICE for pot holes in the road. As opposed to calling public works, he calls the police.

But yes, you never would want to put yourself in any situation where a person could initiate a confrontation. But, again, unfortunately the class for CWP doesn't cover this.

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.

See above. It's unfortunately not taught. The class that CWP holders take is designed to teach you the laws of Florida WRT CCW, and deadly force, and to teach you to handle a firearm with proficiency.

So, in my opinion, yes, Zimmerman went well above and beyond what any reasonable, responsible CWP holder SHOULD do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The waistband is mentioned in one of the 911 calls, I believe.

Yes, I think that is where you might have gotten it:
(I can't vouch for the accuracy of the transcript)

"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something," Zimmerman tells the 911 operator. "He's just staring, looking at all the houses. Now he's coming toward me. He's got his hand in his waistband. Something's wrong with him."

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think there will be enough evidence around for a conviction?

Based on what we've had reported, yes. If some of that seems to be untrue, then possibly. I don't have all the evidence obviously.

Plus, we don't know much about what the police have.
We know what they don't have, but we also don't know what they do have.

I would like to see Zimmerman's complete account of what occurred.

If all there is is unreliable eye-witness accounts and very little evidence gathered by the police, due to the initial assumption of self defence, then he walks?

Maybe?

Possibly. However, there could be enough evidence to charge Zimmerman under US laws, either for civil rights violations, etc.

And, of course, civil lawsuits. I would be willing to bet a years salary that he is found guilty in a civil trial.

If the evidence is not sufficient, no matter how much it seems (for whatever reason) that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, if there is insufficient evidence, then he walks. Which is as it should be.

I agree. And this here is one of the best reasons to have highly trained homicide detectives, who specialize in homicide investigations, on staff. Or, at the very least, contact another local agency for assistance.

At that point, I would feel that an investigation into the Sanford Police would be in order. People should lose their jobs, and possibly be charged with a crime. At MINIMUM, firing and revocation of their LEO certificate.

 

[triforcharity]

I know.

Timing - yes

Level - no

But what's done is done, and at least now some things will see the light of day (even if it is to watch the sunlight shine off them when if they're shown to be squeaky clean.)

Absolutely agree. But, the one thing that I would change, is change when to IF. Based on the professional opinions that I have received for many in the LE community, that is a BIG if.

If I were Zimmerman and I had been acting only in self defence, I'd be thankfull that all these agencies are getting involved

Absolutely.

 

[3point14]

Absolutely agree. But, the one thing that I would change, is change when to IF. Based on the professional opinions that I have received for many in the LE community, that is a BIG if.

Entirely accepted.

 

[triforcharity]

Isn't there a third option where they just cease whatever they're doing and run away?

Nope.

If they were committing a forcible felony in my presence, they are under no circumstances, running away. They could try.......

(But, in all seriousness, possibly. Depends on what they were doing at the time. Had they just actually killed someone, they are NOT under ANY circumstances, running anywhere. Rape? Most likely not either. )

 

[triforcharity]

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

This should say HOUSE!! LOL!! If he was breaking into my neighbors HEART, yes, deadly force would be used.

LOL! I'm such a bad typer when I get typing REALLY fast!

 

[triforcharity]

I think I've explained that badly.

Triforcharity listed the two courses that would occur if he (she? - sorry) were forced to draw his weapon, which were.

1 - Two shots at centre of mass
2 - they lie down and give themselves up.

I was just trying to point out that there's a third option that they (the person without the gun, simply peg it, presenting their back to the weapon holder.

I presume at that point that the weapon will not be discharged.

I understood you. And yes, male is correct.

COULD I at that point use deadly force by law? Yes. Would I? Maybe not. I can run pretty fast, and there is not much of a good chance of getting away.

I honestly, upon reflection, don't know what exactly I would do.

 

[3point14]

Nope.

If they were committing a forcible felony in my presence, they are under no circumstances, running away. They could try.......

(But, in all seriousness, possibly. Depends on what they were doing at the time. Had they just actually killed someone, they are NOT under ANY circumstances, running anywhere. Rape? Most likely not either. )

I was thinking more of self defence than of someone involved in a fellony.

He gets aggressive, you take a pace backwards, he pulls a knife, you take a pace backwards and pull a gun, maintaining distance, he craps himself and runs away.

I don't know yuo from Adam, but you seem a pretty reasonable sort of chap, I do hope you wouldn't shoot him in the back. I can undersand you might want to. A lot.

 

[WildCat]

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.

In the first link the perp kept changing her story, in the second the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony which rules out any self-defense claim.

So far we have no such circumstances in the Zimmerman case.

 

[WildCat]

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.

In Zimmerman's version of the story he was attacked from behind, and didn't have a chance to retreat. If no evidence is found to the contrary then SYG has nothing to do with this case.

Duty to retreat applies in circumstances such as someone is breaking in the front door and you stand your ground rather than retreating out the back door. It doesn't apply if you are attacked and have no opportunity to retreat.

The legal pundits thus far commenting are basically talking out their asses, they (like us) don't have access to the facts of the case.

 

[BenBurch]

I don't need facts in this case beyond unarmed teen, guy with gun acting menacing, ordered by police to desist, shoots teen.

In Illinois I could get a GJ to indict and a jury to convict on just what is public now.

 

[LTC8K6]

I was thinking more of self defence than of someone involved in a fellony.

He gets aggressive, you take a pace backwards, he pulls a knife, you take a pace backwards and pull a gun, maintaining distance, he craps himself and runs away.

I don't know yuo from Adam, but you seem a pretty reasonable sort of chap, I do hope you wouldn't shoot him in the back. I can undersand you might want to. A lot.

I don't know other state's laws, but I looked this up during another discussion and in NC, if I recall corectly, a cop can legally shoot someone who is running away if that person is a threat to the community if he should ger away. There are rules under which you can shoot to stop a fleeing subject, even in the back.

Fleeing Felon rules.