Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

Martin's teacher would likely be unable to reveal his school records.

Why not? You can't violate a dead person's privacy.

 

[LTC8K6]

Still, Trayvon had nonviolent behavioral issues in school, and on the day he was killed, he had been suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.

"He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area (on school property)," Martin said, declining to offer more details.

Okay, there's another interpretation of the reason for the 10 day suspension. When I was in school, a 10 day suspension would have been for something very serious.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/22/3507783/trayvons-parents-paint-portrait.html

 

[Chris L]

You may be imprinting in hindsight. There is no evidence that the dispatcher knew the future outcome, so his words read equally as 'We'll take it from here' out of concern for the caller getting hurt by the suspicious person. Or both.

That was my reading too. The dispatcher was trying to avoid both worst case scenarios. As you said, neither interpretation is helpful to Zimmerman as both show a guy who was too wrapped up in what he was doing (for whatever reason) to take rational advice from a professional.

 

[Checkmite]

I think it's clear that the dispatcher wanted to prevent a confrontation. I don't believe it's coincidental that immediately after telling him not to follow the kid, the dispatcher seems to focus on actively coaxing Zimmerman to return to his vehicle and wait there for police - an effort that almost worked, but sadly ultimately failed.

 

[This is The End]

With my cop hat on, I'd say that for me there would have to be a very good reason for me to start following someone before I witnessed either suspicious or outright illegal activity.

Yeah, every time someone in this thread makes a "following a perp" analogy, be it a bank robber, or a hit-and-run; they forget (or forget to add) that M was not a perp. So that analogy doesn't count at all. ...and as for being suspicious, I don't even buy that. You have to do more than "not be known to Z" to be suspicious.

I think it's clear that the dispatcher wanted to prevent a confrontation. I don't believe it's coincidental that immediately after telling him not to follow the kid, the dispatcher seems to focus on actively coaxing Zimmerman to return to his vehicle and wait there for police - an effort that almost worked, but sadly ultimately failed.

What I find interesting, and I missed it when I listened to it days ago, is that Z agreed to not follow M.

Z says "okay" to "we don't need you to [follow him]".

 

[leftysergeant]

Can you beat someone up for following you in public?

If he does it in a manner that suggests that he is going to harm you, you can kill him, in Florida.

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/trayvon-martin-s-ten-day-suspension

Now prove that that is the right Trayvon.

 

[leftysergeant]

Here is a little mind exercise for you all to determine whether the fat sociopath had any valid reason to tail Martin.

What was Martin wearing, what color was it and what time was it?

 

[Cylinder]

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

----(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

----(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

----(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

----(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

----(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

----(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

----(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

----(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

----(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Clearly, Zimmerman's justification defense will have to argue an attack under subsection (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.

There are no claims that seem to meet subsections (1) and (4) requirements of forced entry into a dwelling of vehicle.

 

[Information Analyst]

[Double post]

 

[Information Analyst]

No, "John" actually saw Zimmerman screaming for help.

During/after still isn't "the whole thing" by any stretch of the imagination. Having only part of the story can be deceptive.

 

[Information Analyst]

Actually the report from the girl Martin was on the phone with has Martin confronting Zimmerman first, asking "why are you following me". Only then does Zimmerman say anything to Martin.

Am I missing some cultural difference where in America asking someone, "why are you following me?" are classed as threatening words? Martin realised someone in a startionary truck was staring at him for what to him (Martin) would have seemed like no good reason. When he ran off a short distance, the mystery assailant got out of his vehicle and followed him. I'd say Martin was perfectly within his rights to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Above everything, we can't lose sight of the fact that Martin was doing nothing wrong, so it is perfectly understandable that Zimmerman's behaviour caused him concern/fear.

 

[Information Analyst]

Lots of speculation about what else he may or may not have been doing, but that seems to have all been based on wildly varying degrees of nonsense, such as how GZ couldn't name the street he is on, or using loaded terms like vigilante.

It's not nonsense to see something odd in someone not being able to name a road two streets away from where they live on a very simple development site, where they're involved in neighourbood watch.

In the context of the claimed errand it makes less sense, given that his vehicle was stationary and the engine switched off. If that was because he'd just got back in, or was about to get out, because he had just delivered/collected something to/from XXXX Twin Trees Lane, his presence there would be explicable, but not how he couldn't have given a more precise location to the police. If he was en route to/from this supposed errand, then where was was it to/from, because firstly Twin Trees Lane doesn't seem a natural route to/from his own house, and secondly if he was in transit it brings into question the timeframe in which he would have become aware and then concerned about Martin (and decide he's "on drugs or something"!), before calling the police. It's then a full two minutes on the call recording before Zimmerman says Martin runs. Just how slow would Martin have to be walking for him to have taken that long, on top of however long it was after first seeing Martin that Zimmerman made the call?

The idea that Zimemrman was on some sort of errand and just happened to spot Martin in that process doesn't add up. On the other hand, it's entirely consistent with Zimmerman be parked up, specifically watching out for "suspicious" characters. In any other juridiction, I would like to think that the police would be prepared to investigate such a glaring anomaly.

 

[Information Analyst]

He got into a confrontation becuase he followed TM. I understand, people might be uncomfortable being followed. Or scared. In that case, maybe they should run or not confront the person following them. Again, from the facts we have, TM confronted GZ, not the other way around. And for all we know, TM initiated whatever fight they had.

But Martin did run, and Zimmerman then either followed him directly, or cut him off ahead. In either scenario, Martin getting his question in first doesn't equate with him "confronting" Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had already initated a non-verbal confrontation. FWIW, I'm pretty certain that Zimmerman's actions upto that point would contitute a crime (common assault) in themselves.

 

[Information Analyst]

If Zimmerman's only intention was report Martin's location, he could have easily done that from his car as he knew he was supposed to. Instead, he chose to arm himself and pursue Martin. You don't get to flout the rules and then expect the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.

More to the point, if Zimmerman believed that Martin was heading for the rear entrance (as he suggested in his call to the police), why didn't he just stay in his vehicle and drive round there? Considering the distance, he would certainly have got there first, no matter how fast Martin was running.

 

[Information Analyst]

Also, anyone can feel free to address:
From a legal standpoint, do you see anything wrong with following a stranger through your subdivision while concealed carrying ? I mean, theoretically , that's not illegal is it ? I t could be intimidating, provocative or confrontational - but is it illegal ?

Where I live (excepting the presence of the firearm, obviously), Zimmerman's behaviour even before any words were spoken may well constitute a crime.

 

[Information Analyst]

What about a 20 something that shoves a cop? You would not get arrested for nothing after all.

ETA: Also, didn't Martin's teacher say he was suspended for 5 days due to being tardy too often? Wouldn't he/she be in a better position to know about the suspension than some guy who thinks the screen cap another guy took from the twitter account he claims is that of Trayvon's older brother, seems legit?

The brother could, in fact, have been making a joke by exageration. Heck, most time a police helicopter is over our area, either my wife or myself with say to the other: "They're looking for you again!"

 

[Dancing David]

A 17 year old who punches a bus driver would have major problems.

You would not get suspended from school for 10 days for nothing.

He was suspended for less than ten days for being late/ missing school.

 

[LTC8K6]

He was suspended for less than ten days for being late/ missing school.

See my post above.

Being in an unauthorized area, whatever that means.

The stories of this suspension are many and varied.

Tardiness, swinging on a bus driver, being in an unauthorized area.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's all sorts of stuff out there, most of which isn't relevant. I suppose it's backlash against the "choirboy" stories that were put out early.

Most of it is just grabbing onto the death to make political hay, and it stinks.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

See my post above.

Being in an unauthorized area, whatever that means.

The stories of this suspension are many and varied.

Tardiness, swinging on a bus driver, being in an unauthorized area.

From your link:

"He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area (on school property)," Martin said, declining to offer more details.

I think since this came from the father, it is the one to go with, rather than a bus driver or tardiness.