Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

I think it depends on the demeanor of Zimmerman and whether or not Zimmerman took care to keep the gun hidden. Just seeing the gun could make Martin reasonably in fear of his life. In California Zimmerman would be guilty of brandishing a weapon if he just lifted his jacket to expose the gun.

Did you seriously think that no one would even bother to click on the link and hear the attorney say it requires that the gun be 'displayed in a threatening manner'? That just lifiting to expose, as in reaching for something, has nothing to do with it? That self defense gets such a charge dismissed?

 

[Ryokan]

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

So if you want to kill someone legally, all you have to do is start a fight with them, and if they fight back, you can just shoot them.

I don't want to live where you live..

 

[leftysergeant]

This is true, however we have no evidence at all that that is what happened.


Uh, what?

Martin asked the nutjob why he was following him. Z said "What are you doing here?" Sounds like something a gangsta would say. WRONG BLOODY ANSWER.

Had Z said that he was with the Neighborhood Watch, he would have some legal grounds to claim self defense. It might have spared him his little owie.

 

[WildCat]

Florida law:

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person.

I hilited the part you missed, Zimmerman had a license. The above is how you transport it when you don't have a license.

 

[crimresearch]

So if you want to kill someone legally, all you have to do is start a fight with them, and if they fight back, you can just shoot them.

I don't want to live where you live..

I don't think anybody lives in that place.

In this place you can certainly *try* such a thing, and hope that a jury is gullible enough to fall for it... just as in Norway.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So if you want to kill someone legally, all you have to do is start a fight with them, and if they fight back, you can just shoot them.

I don't want to live where you live..

Where I live, you don't beat someone to the ground, and keep beating, unless you want to get shot.

I'm quite happy that, where I live, once you knock someone down, you're expected to walk away.

If Martin had knocked Zimmerman to the ground, turned around, and walked away, I suspect he'd still be alive today.

 

[RandFan]

Did you seriously think that no one would even bother to click on the link and hear the attorney say it requires that the gun be 'displayed in a threatening manner'? That just lifiting to expose, as in reaching for something, has nothing to do with it? That self defense gets such a charge dismissed?

? Watch it again, he says specifically "if you lift up your shirt".

 

[crimresearch]

Where I live, you don't beat someone to the ground, and keep beating, unless you want to get shot.

I'm quite happy that, where I live, once you knock someone down, you're expected to walk away.

If Martin had knocked Zimmerman to the ground, turned around, and walked away, I suspect he'd still be alive today.

Still waiting for those legal citations. You know, the ones saying that a punch in the nose is deadly force or great bodily harm... or the one saying that it is legal to use disproprtionate force.

 

[WildCat]

No. I was saying that he had the right to do so, if that was what it took to subdue the dirtbag. If Martin did see the gun, then he would obviously have been an idiot to stop until he was able to disarm the stalker.

Z always had the option to lie still and be disarmed. He was not engaged in a lawful activity when he scared the kid into attacking him.

You conceal carry, correct? So if you walk in front of someone, and they see you have a gun, they can "bash your brains out"?

 

[WildCat]

So if you want to kill someone legally, all you have to do is start a fight with them, and if they fight back, you can just shoot them.

No, if you start the fight you'll be guilty of murder. You cannot claim self defense under that scenario.

 

[Giz]

If Martin had knocked Zimmerman to the ground, turned around, and walked away, I suspect he'd still be alive today.

Ah, but we don't know that. Maybe Martin did get up and walk off and then Zimmerman got up and, enraged and pride hurt, shot him. Who knows? Without all of the sworn eye witness statements and police forensics (and maybe even with them) how will we know?

It's all speculation. Anyone saying different is going with their gut bias...

 

[Information Analyst]

If Zimmerman's description of the situation is correct (he had got out of his vehicle to check the street sign and was accosted by Martin on his way back to the vehicle), it is unlikely that his wearing of his firearm constitutes "brandishing a weapon" even under California law.

Bollocks he "got out of his vehicle to check the street sign". From the phone call audio he's in the middle of giving his half-arsed directions, then exclaims, "****, he's running," and only then do you hear the sound of him opening the door and getting out.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Ah, but we don't know that. Maybe Martin did get up and walk off and then Zimmerman got up and, enraged and pride hurt, shot him. Who knows?

I think there's already enough evidence available, both testimony and physical, to rule out this possibility.

 

[crimresearch]

? Watch it again, he says specifically "if you lift up your shirt".

I'm not playing your games any more.

He says several things to give the entire context of the law, you are cherry picking to create a false assertion.

 

[Ryokan]

I don't think anybody lives in that place.

In this place you can certainly *try* such a thing, and hope that a jury is gullible enough to fall for it... just as in Norway.

No, if you start the fight you'll be guilty of murder. You cannot claim self defense under that scenario.

I know, but AvalonXQ is adamant that this is how it is. Attack someone, they fight back, you can shoot them dead. According to him.

 

[WildCat]

Ah, but we don't know that. Maybe Martin did get up and walk off and then Zimmerman got up and, enraged and pride hurt, shot him. Who knows? Without all of the sworn eye witness statements and police forensics (and maybe even with them) how will we know?

It's all speculation. Anyone saying different is going with their gut bias...

Exactly. When all the forensic evidence is in, it will either be consistent with Zimmerman's claims or not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I know, but AvalonXQ is adamant that this is how it is. Attack someone, they fight back, you can shoot them dead. According to him.

Nope. Look at what I said again.

Once jump on top of the guy and keep beating him, you're no longer "fighting back"; you're the aggressor. And yes, at that point the guy can shoot you to defend himself.

 

[RandFan]

He says several things to give the entire context of the law, you are cherry picking to create a false assertion.

He says "if you lift up your shirt"... there is nothing more to take out of context. If you lift up your shirt it is brandishing a gun.

 

[crimresearch]

BTW: I resent that. I wouldn't mind that you were wrong if you didn't make such an accusation.

I don't give a rip what you think about me personally.

The facts are the facts, and you are misstating the facts, then using specious logic and clear cut fallacies like the above deliberate removal of the important words "in a threatening manner", to promote a false claim.

I'm not playing these games with you any more.

 

[Kestrel]

That depends on how you define trouble. Looking for suspicious people is not the same as keeping an eye on the neighborhood. My neighborhood has an informal watch program. If someone was in my neighbor's yard, I pay attention and so do my neighbors. But we don't worry about people walking down the street.

This was about 7pm. That's not even a high crime time frame. Home burglars more often strike when people are at work during the day, or steal from garages and cars in the middle of the night. How many burglars are out casing a housing complex at 7pm?

But if you were someone looking for trouble, expecting trouble, and expecting a black kid in a hoodie to be a criminal, you might then act like Z did.

Anyone who has studied the issue knows that residential burglaries are far more common during the day when most people are at school or work. Watching TV commercials for burglar alarms gives the impression that they mostly happen at night when the house is occupied by a cute wife and a couple of small children.