Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

Of course, if the police are shown to have been utter morons in exonerating him, it takes on a whole new dimension.

There is nothing to clear the dirtbag of false imprisonment in interfering with Martin's activities. We have clear police misconduct just on that count.

The chief needs to be fired now for cause.

Well, with all the weight coming down on this case, I'm sure we will see if the police were morons.

My bet is that it turns out that the evidence supports self defense as the SPD said, but the pressure results in some sort of charge with a relatively short jail sentence if convicted.

I do wonder where they would try the case now, given the publicity.

A big clue as to the police case will be the grand jury's reaction.

 

[leftysergeant]

My bet is that it turns out that the evidence supports self defense as the SPD said, but the pressure results in some sort of charge with a relatively short jail sentence if convicted.

Cow cookies. The SYG law requires that the killer not bew involved in an unlawful activity. The dirtbag was committing a crime in attempting to detain Martin.

Martin should have killed the fool.

 

[LTC8K6]

That's a very sensible law. On what grounds did George Zimmerman believe that Trayvon Martin had committed a felony?

Who said he did? Who said Zimmerman was going to arrest Martin?

Zimmerman doesn't mention it as far as I know. I don't think a citizen's arrest is pertinent. I just answered the question.

When you make a citizen's arrest, you must tell the person they are under arrest and why. It's normally the first thing you say to them. Zimmerman would likely know that.

It immediately shifts the confrontation to one of an arrest and not one of violent conflict. You are arresting the person, not attacking them. No harm is intended. That's why you announce that you are arresting them and why. They can no longer claim that you were attacking them out of the blue and they had to defend themselves.

You will suffer the criminal and civil consequences if you have the wrong person, though.

 

[RobRoy]

Of course, if the police are shown to have been utter morons in exonerating him, it takes on a whole new dimension.

There is nothing to clear the dirtbag of false imprisonment in interfering with Martin's activities. We have clear police misconduct just on that count.

The chief needs to be fired now for cause.

When was Martin imprisoned, falsely or otherwise?

It immediately shifts the confrontation to one of an arrest and not one of violent conflict. You are arresting the person, not attacking them. No harm is intended. That's why you announce that you are arresting them and why. They can no longer claim that you were attacking them out of the blue and they had to defend themselves.

You will suffer the criminal and civil consequences if you have the wrong person, though.

It might legally shift the confrontation, but I don't know that it would actually change the terms. If anything, it might tip the balance into a violent reaction:

You're gonna arrest me!? Like hell you are!​

 

[ravdin]

Including Zimmerman?

And please note the MO is the same as in the present case. He stalked her, provoked a confrontation, then got physical. When reported to the police, he claimed self-defense.

Just like with Trayvon Martin.

In both cases, the entire situation would have been avoided if George Zimmerman had not created the confrontation in the first place.

But with his history, you don't think there's a pattern here of a guy who keeps losing his cool?

/digression

I have a friend who was denied a permit to buy a gun because she is a registered medical marijuana user.

Assault a cop? You can still buy a gun.

Get into a domestic altercation? Again, you can buy a gun.

Voluntarily enter your name into a database so you can purchase medicine that is legal in your state? No gun for you!



/end digression

 

[RobRoy]

/digression

I have a friend who was denied a permit to buy a gun because she is a registered medical marijuana user.

Assault a cop? You can still buy a gun.

Get into a domestic altercation? Again, you can buy a gun.

Voluntarily enter your name into a database so you can purchase medicine that is legal in your state? No gun for you!



/end digression

/digression

I would assume that's because purchase and use of marijuana is a violation of Federal law, and depending, a felony.

/digression

 

[leftysergeant]

Who said he did? Who said Zimmerman was going to arrest Martin?

The fat pig himself did.

When you make a citizen's arrest, you must tell the person they are under arrest and why.It immediately shifts the confrontation to one of an arrest and not one of violent conflict. You are arresting the person, not attacking them. No harm is intended. That's why you announce that you are arresting them and why. They can no longer claim that you were attacking them out of the blue and they had to defend themselves.

Cow cookies. There was no crime and there was no reason for Martin to believe that that crazy fat white boy was anything but a dangerous redneck out to mess with a black person.

He would have been right, had he had something bigger than a bottle of tea to have split the fool's head open.

There is no right of citizen's arrest if you do not see a crime in progress.

 

[LTC8K6]

FL = Shall Issue = difficult to deny the permit
CA = Restrictive May issue = permit denied easily

 

[WildCat]

Including Zimmerman?

Who knows? Certainly not you or I.

And please note the MO is the same as in the present case. He stalked her, provoked a confrontation, then got physical. When reported to the police, he claimed self-defense.

Just like with Trayvon Martin.

Where are you getting this information?

In both cases, the entire situation would have been avoided if George Zimmerman had not created the confrontation in the first place.

But with his history, you don't think there's a pattern here of a guy who keeps losing his cool?

Even if true, that's something to consider in sentencing. Not in determining guilt.

 

[johnny karate]

It sounded like you would expect the police to be aware of my friend's tendency. Or Zimmerman's supposed ones.

I don't think background checks show anything but the facts.

What the police think or know doesn't factor into it. You claimed a hothead wouldn't be more prone to committing murder. I refuted that claim.

At any rate, in the police statement, they say they were aware of Zimmerman's background.

There seems to be some dispute about what the police knew and when they knew it, and by the department's own admission, they didn't bother to run a check at the time of the incident:

Frustration also grew after the parents said they had been told by detectives that Mr. Zimmerman had a “squeaky clean” record. They knew this, the detectives said, because Mr. Zimmerman told them. But Mr. Zimmerman had been arrested in 2005 on charges of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer. The charges were later dropped.

The police said it took them some time to run the check.

“A criminal background check was conducted within 12 to 24 hours after we got the call,” Sgt. David Morgenstern said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/u...ught-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html

 

[leftysergeant]

When was Martin imprisoned, falsely or otherwise?

Some fat crazy dirtbag was attempting to prevent his going about his business. In most places, that is a crime.

In Florida, it is justification for the person you detain to kill you.

 

[WildCat]

Cow coolies. He announced his intention to follow an unarmed person who had committed no known crime, he announced that it was his intention thatthe individual he was following would not be permitted to leave the area before the police arrived.

I hilited the part you just made up.

He put the individual he was following into such a state of fear that, under Florida SYG laws, trhe individuall wouldl have had a right to stomp a mud hole in the fat little poppinjays chest, and then used that individuals actions as justification to shoot him.

And if this is true Zimmerman is justified in shooting Martin, since he wasn't committing a crime by following Martin.

PRIMA FACIA. They had a phone conversation with the dirt bag which should itself have been considered prima facia evidence of felonious false imprisonment.

Which part of the phone conversation was that?

 

[LTC8K6]

What the police think or know doesn't factor into it. You claimed a hothead wouldn't be more prone to committing murder. I refuted that claim.




There seems to be some dispute about what the police knew and when they knew it, and by the department's own admission, they didn't bother to run a check at the time of the incident:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/u...ught-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html

And running the background check at the time would have changed what?

What is in the background check that allows them to detain Zimmerman under FL law in a case where they believe the physical evidence supports a claim of self defense?

 

[leftysergeant]

Even if true, that's something to consider in sentencing. Not in determining guilt.

Stalking goes to the credibility of his defense. He is a stalker.

 

[ravdin]

You will suffer the criminal and civil consequences if you have the wrong person, though.

In theory, sure. In this particular case it remains to be seen.

If I were walking through my neighborhood and a threatening looking person came up to me and informed me I was under "citizen's arrest", I'm not sure how kindly I would react. It's also unclear that Martin was given even that much of a warning.

 

[RobRoy]

I’m curious what constitutes being arrested or taken into custody. I ask, because there is a great deal being made about Zimmerman’s record, even though charges were dropped and whatnot.

I was once stopped by police, several in fact, while out running with a foster child. Some helpful neighbors had heard her yelling (not at me, but they didn’t know that), and she happened to be a different ethnicity than me. I found myself surrounded by police cars with very clear, very firm orders to stop where I was, and get down on the ground. I had no identification with me, and thus no way to prove who I was or that I had legal custody of the child.

I wonder if this was entered in my police record as being detained for kidnapping?

 

[WildCat]

So does the law allow a person in FL to physically restrain/detain a person just because you're the neighborhood watch dog and you don't like the person's looks? There was no crime committed here and so no fleeing suspect excuse or anything close.

I would think FL law allows no such thing, but then again there's no evidence whatsoever at this point that Zimmerman physically restrained anyone. Do you know of any?

 

[RobRoy]

Some fat crazy dirtbag was attempting to prevent his going about his business. In most places, that is a crime.

In Florida, it is justification for the person you detain to kill you.

Yes, but when was it stated that Zimmerman detained or falsely imprisoned Martin?

 

[leftysergeant]

Even if true, that's something to consider in sentencing. Not in determining guilt.

The little piggy was complaining to the cops who told him not to follow Martin that he was tired of people getting away. Prima facia evidence that he intended to keep Martin from reaching what he thought to be Martin's goal.

 

[WildCat]

I can't say it's so clear cut who was the perpetrator and who was acting in self defense.

It was in SG's hypothetical example to which I was responding.