Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[leftysergeant]

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

He announced his intention that Martin would not get away.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

He wasn't. A citizen's arrest plays no part at all in this case as far as I know.

This is a SYG law case entirely. Or not.

Edit: not syg but self defense.

 

[RobRoy]

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.

Err, that's not what the dispatcher said. IIRC, the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and he replied that he was. The dispatcher then said something to the effect that it wasn't necessary. There was no order by the cops to not follow Martin.

 

[RobRoy]

He announced his intention that Martin would not get away.

I just announced my intention to not let you get away (you appear to be quite the catch!). Have I now falsely imprisoned you?

 

[WildCat]

Begging the question. The premise implicitly assumes the conclusion. Circular. If someone is dead then there is no self defense because the fact that someone is dead proves that there is an assault and you cannot claim self defense if there is an assault.

I don't think you understood SG's question I was responding to. If someone assaults you, that's a crime by definition. If the person you're assaulting fights back and you shoot him, you can't claim self defense because the incident was caused by your criminal activity.

The same applies if you're robbing a liquor store and the clerk comes at you with a baseball bat and you kill him. You can't claim self defense in such a circumstance.

 

[WildCat]

There is nothing to clear the dirtbag of false imprisonment in interfering with Martin's activities.

You keep saying that... what evidence do you have that Zimmerman had any intention of doing anything but follow Martin? We don't know who laid a hand on whom first.

 

[ravdin]

He wasn't. A citizen's arrest plays no part at all in this case as far as I know.

This is a SYG law case entirely. Or not.

As far as SYG goes, one could make a case that it was Martin who was in reasonable fear for his life, and justifiably used force in self defense.

 

[WildCat]

The dirtbag did not witness a crime, so detaining Martin was a crime.

Again, what evidence do you have that Zimmerman detained Martin?

 

[WildCat]

So why wouldn't the police have seen Zimmerman as initiating a confrontation here regardless if Trayvon fought back? There was no crime that had been committed.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation? The girl Martin was on the phone with says Martin confronted Zimmerman, asking him "why are you following me". There's no evidence at this point that Zimmerman said anything to Martin prior to that, or laid a hand on him.

 

[WildCat]

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

Zimmerman never claimed that Martin had committed a felony.

 

[WildCat]

Some fat crazy dirtbag was attempting to prevent his going about his business.

Evidence?

 

[WildCat]

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.

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman attempted a citizens arrest of Martin?

 

[WildCat]

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.

That's not evidence of any such thing, let alone prima facie evidence.

 

[WildCat]

This is a SYG law case entirely.

I don't see how it is at all. It's a standard self defense case as far as I can tell.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony backed by the record of the exact time the call was made and ended, matched to the timing of the police arrival at a minimum corroborates the fact Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.

Can you put some facts around and flesh out your timeline ? I'm not sure I understand how your scenario works. Be sure to include the witness account of Martins on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman yelling for help. Thanks.

 

[WildCat]

As far as SYG goes, one could make a case that it was Martin who was in reasonable fear for his life, and justifiably used force in self defense.

And as I said to lefty, then you have a case where both had the right to excercise self defense because of the tragic circumstances.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're reading waaaay too much into this.

There is a pattern in Zimmerman's criminal record. Not being restricted to juror rules where one doesn't get to see prior history kinds of evidence, I find the evidence at least worth mentioning.

Fair enough. It's getting tough to keep track of who is fighting what battle here.

I'm kinda just trying to sort out what plausible scenarios all the facts seem to support.

 

[ravdin]

If it was truly a prima facie case the onus would be on Zimmerman to show the evidence was in error, which it certainly is not.

I was referring to the evidence required to charge Zimmerman with a crime. It's not the same as the evidence that would be required to convict him. If the prima facie evidence was shown to be in error, then the case would have to be dropped immediately and there would be no need for Zimmerman to refute the charges.

The only evidence we seem to have that would clear George Zimmerman of the charge that he shot dead Trayvon Martin without cause or reasonable fear for his life is the testimonial of the sole surviving witness of the incident... one George Zimmerman. As the Church Lady would say, how convenient!

Again, I don't believe that proves Zimmerman's guilt in any way. But I also don't believe that clears him of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's an actual witness interview on Anderson Cooper:

I think a possible scenario is Zimmerman tackled Trayvon and the gun discharged accidentally: Negligent homicide. I also wonder if the blood on Zimmerman's nose wasn't Trayvon's.

I highly doubt that a gun like a Kel Tec PF9 (9mm) with a 5 pound trigger pull, and internal hammer system is going to "accidentally" fire.

I've fired every weapon that Kel Tec makes (they're made about 15 minutes from my house) and they don't misfire often at all, nor do they go off unintentionally just from bumping or even dropping.

I would find that highly unlikely.

 

[ravdin]

And as I said to lefty, then you have a case where both had the right to excercise self defense because of the tragic circumstances.

Yes, the circumstances were tragic. A quick recap of what each player was doing.

George Zimmerman: Agitated, armed to the teeth and driving around the neighborhood in pursuit of a suspicious looking character.

Trayvon Martin: Wearing a hoodie and in possession of a packet of Skittles.

Now if their encounter took a tragic turn, whose fault do you think it was?