Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

We don't have any other testimony (evidence) ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8132856#post8132856

Really ?

 

[triforcharity]

Just arrest Zimmerman, have his trial, and release him.

In south central LA.

Nice. Lol!

 

[Travis]

The Dade prosecutor has no more knowledge of this case than you or I do.

Irrelevant. The issue is that the prosecutor knew this would happen eventually.

And I bet you will be providing no evidence for that claim either.

This was on the NBC Nightly News last night. Prior to that I was unaware that preventing looting was the catalyst for the law.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You're defining "initiating" as either who spoke first or who touched the other first.

I would define initiating in this case as coming up to Trayvon. It's pretty reasonable for Trayvon to have feared Zimmerman when Zimmerman followed T. It's reasonable to then say the initiation was when Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon to confirm Z was indeed following T.

"Why are you following me?" is a response to Zimmerman coming close enough to worry Trayvon. It's not the initiation of the confrontation.

 

[ravdin]

We don't have any other testimony (evidence) ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8132856#post8132856

Really ?

Is there other evidence here that would exonerate Zimmerman?

 

[triforcharity]

Are you calling the prosecutor for Dade County stupid?

Yes. If that's what he called it, then yes, absolutely.

Because that's exactly what he said about this law last night on the Ed Show. He fought against this law because he knew that psychopathic yahoo's would be out shooting people after provoking fights then invoking this law to make it all nice and legal.

Well, then yes, he's stupid. IIRC, this is the first time this law has come under major scrutiny.

And this law, according to those that pushed for it, was specifically written to make shooting people who look like they might engage in looting legal.

I am calling complete bull ****. Please cite your source.

I repeat: not people in the act of a crime just people who look like they might engage in a crime. Those were their words. That's why they included the language that deadly force was okay to use if you suspected the person was about to commit a felony property crime.

Nowhere in the law does it mention deadly force for a property crime.

Here's the entire text of the law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Burglary to an occupied dwelling is a forcible felony. It falls under home invasion robbery.

Here's the specific text.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Looting is NOT a forcible felony.

Sorry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Zimmerman never claimed that Martin had committed a felony.

Which then shows Zimmerman had no reason to approach Trayvon.

 

[varwoche]

Fact 1: Armed vigilante follows innocent youth (against police instruction)

Fact 2: Armed vigilante kills youth

Given fact #1, I have a hard time imagining any circumstances that would absolve Zimmerman, nor police inaction, in my mind. And shame on Florida law if it sees fit not to even charge Zimmerman.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is there other evidence here that would exonerate Zimmerman?

Not exonerate but it would help his case in some people's minds (not mine) if it could be shown the person on the tape yelling help was Zimmerman's and if there was evidence on Trayvon's hands in the autopsy that he had hit Zimmerman.

And I just thought of something else, it should be evident in the autopsy who was where when the shot was fired. If Trayvon was shot in the back Zimmerman is toast.

At least one person is looking for it. I wonder why the news media isn't clamoring for it? Is twitter not reminding the media of this?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is there other evidence here that would exonerate Zimmerman?

Exonerate ? I'm not in a position to say. I'm not really arguing for or against SYG or the legality issue.

You said:
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.

IDK if testimonty of him martin on top of him and him yelling for help qualifies to 'clear' him.

My point was that the hilited portion appears to be incorrect.

 

[triforcharity]

If you are attacked by a stranger, you fight back in self defense and the assailant kills you in self defense, is that justifiable self defense?

No. You committed a crime in attacking someone.

Wouldn't that mean any person who is killed by their attacker and who was fighting back means the attacker was defending his/herself?

IF the law applied to the assailant, then yes. However, attacking someone eliminates you from the eligibility of self defense.

Just wondering in case it turns out Trayvon was justifiably fighting back. Would it have been assault for Zimmerman to touch Trayvon in the first place? Can you just physically detain anyone you feel like?

If it turns out that Zimmerman attempted to detain or otherwise touch Martin in ANY way, Zimmerman is guilty of battery, and therefor, not eligible to claim self defense.

Fl Statute 776.013 (3)

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked..."

If Zimmerman attacked first, he has NO right to claim any legal protection under the laws of Florida. He was committing the crime of battery.

"Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other," is the legal definition of battery.

 

[Information Analyst]

An man armed with a gun stalks an unarmed teen. One of them has a criminal record, and the other doesn't. The one without a record ends up dead. The killer just happens to be the sole surviving witness. I'd say there's probable cause to dig a bit deeper into what's happened here.

Basically, this. Everything that has been reported abut Martin's background supports the idea that he was completely innocent of anything when, even though Zimmermen convinced himself otherwise. Martin appears (from the phone call to the girlfriend) to have been aware that Zimmerman was stalking him, and was concerned/scared. Ultimately it doesn't matter whgat Martin did when eventually Zimmerman chased him down, because it was a situation entirely of Zimmerman's making, which in most sane jurisdictions would see him now sitting in a cell, being investigated, and facing trial. Him just saying "it was self defence" should get him a free pass.

 

[ravdin]

Looting is NOT a forcible felony.

Sorry.

I should hope not. Using deadly force to protect yourself and your family from a home invasion is absolutely justified. But you'd have to have a screw loose to shoot someone dead over your TV or your car. File a police report, fill out the insurance paperwork and get a new one.

 

[ravdin]

Exonerate ? I'm not in a position to say. I'm not really arguing for or against SYG or the legality issue.

You said:
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.

IDK if testimonty of him martin on top of him and him yelling for help qualifies to 'clear' him.

My point was that the hilited portion appears to be incorrect.

I'm not suggesting this evidence clears him. I'm suggesting that if we were to advocate for George Zimmerman, this is all of the evidence we'd have to present on his behalf.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

Yes, I meant self defense.

 

[RobRoy]

Fact 1: Armed vigilante follows innocent youth (against police instruction)

This part is not factual.

Fact 2: Armed vigilante kills youth

Given fact #1, I have a hard time imagining any circumstances that would absolve Zimmerman, nor police inaction, in my mind.

Absolve? I guess that depends on what you mean. If you're talking legally, then if Martin had started beating Zimmerman within an inch of his life (as is Zimmerman's claim) then that "absolves" him under the law.

And shame on Florida law if it sees fit not to even charge Zimmerman.

Why? Because they followed their own laws?

 

[Information Analyst]

No, you have to believe the person is committing or has just committed a felony. You don't need to be a neighborhood watch member. Any citizen can make such an arrest.

Most jurisdictions have a citizen's arrest provision.

You can arrest and detain a bank robber coming out of a bank in the act, for example.

Or a drunk trying to drive off in his car.

And a kid who's just come back from buying Skittles and a canned drink...?

 

[WildCat]

Which then shows Zimmerman had no reason to approach Trayvon.

He followed Martin, as anyone is allowed to do.

Fact 1: Armed vigilante follows innocent youth (against police instruction)

There was no police order not to follow, so not a fact.

And that's an odd definition of vigilante, unless you have evidence that Zimmerman intended to punish Martin?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not suggesting this evidence clears him. I'm suggesting that if we were to advocate for George Zimmerman, this is all of the evidence we'd have to present on his behalf.

OK, sorry I misunderstood.

 

[RandFan]

Why? Because they followed their own laws?

Because they passed the law.