Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[triforcharity]

Well another possibility is that while going back to his truck, Martin was doubling back to get to the house he was staying at. They can't see each other until the last second. When they do see each other they are closer now & Zimmerman thinks Martin doubled back to confront him. Martin asks why Zimmerman was following him & Zimmerman reaches for his phone to call police. Martin reacts to Zimmerman reaching & decks him. Martin sees the gun & now believes he's fighting for his life so he piles on & tries to get the gun. Zimmerman now fears for his life & manages to draw & fire.

I certainly see this as plausible. Don't know if it fits the evidence, but we'll see.

 

[leftysergeant]

That would be robbery, then attempted murder

Not a bit of it. You have a right to disarm a person who appears to be attacking you for no reason, and you have the right to use deadly force to prevent his taking the weapon back.

See the Florida Stand Your Ground law.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll need to find the details of the FL law but most states which allow concealed carried weapons have laws on the books that prohibit flashing guns. The gun must be carried in a holster or pack that conceals the fact that one is carrying a weapon. Many of them do not look like a traditional cowboy holster, they look like pouches or fanny packs.

If Martin went for Zimmerman's gun, he would have had to recognize a holster and remove the gun from the holster while in the middle of a scuffle.

Unless Zimmerman was carrying a concealed weapon in his car, then the laws are different. A concealed weapon in a vehicle needs to be securely encased. If Zimmerman pulled it out of that case in order to stalk Martin, he may not have had a body holster. In that case he may have had the weapon in his hand (or waistband) but probably was not carrying it in a legal fashion. Even the most lenient gun states don't allow you to run around waving a gun.

Either Martin had very limited access to a holstered gun or he could have seen Zimmerman holding a gun. In the latter case, he probably would have tried to avoid confrontation.

You're correct.

As a CWP holder, I am not allowed to carry my M4 around slung over my shoulder. (Unless I am hunting of course) I also cannot carry it openly, meaning it must be secured in some secure holster and hidden from plain view.

In a vehicle, it must be out of plain sight.

You can find it here.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.01.html

And here is the complete chapter.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html

Here is the open carry section.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.053.html

This basically just means that if you're getting out of your car, and your shirt uncovers the gun, you cant be charged.

Let me know if you want more info. I'm not a lawyer, but Florida gun laws are of interest to me, and know them quite well.

 

[sgtbaker]

I've heard 3 versions of why Martin was out of school, none of them at all relevant to his being a menace to society. Assaulting a school employee would get more than 10 days suspension, too many tardies might hold him back a grade, a little pot sounds about right.
Zimmerman's past violent encounters will come up when the prosecutor decides to challenge his credibility and establish a pattern of behavior.
That's going to be too strong a card to not play.

And it would be suicide for Zimmerman's attorney to start talking about gangs, tattoos, gold teeth or the victim's past in school.

His stated defense remains the best option, simply asserting self defense because of fear for his life in the moment, not 'blame the victim'.

On one side, we have Trayvon's mother saying, "He would never do that," in response to the accusation that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's past violent altercations (from seven years ago) are brought up as evidence that Zimmerman has violent tendancies. These seems completely acceptable to everyone. Now, I have said before that pictures of gold teeth and tattoos, even a possible tough guy internet identity are irrelavent. However, if Zimmerman's shoving match with a police officer is evidence that Zimmerman is capable of getting into a physical altercation, I think alleged swinging on a bus driver is certainly relavent to the question of whether or not Trayvon is capable of getting into a physical altercation, as well.

 

[leftysergeant]

Light enough that Martin was probably the person IDed as 'on top'.

And probably not the color of outer garment any rational burglar wears on the job, right?

So where did that ass hat get the idea that Martin looked like a burglar?

 

[triforcharity]

Maybe you can straighten Wildcat out on what the shooting he uses as an example shows. There is a hell of a big difference between being shot with a rubber bullet and a 9mm.

That's what it seems to be to me.

It's fired from what appears to be a long gun of some kind. It seems odd.

If he was shot with a shotgun at that short of range, he wouldn't have stayed on his feet.

A 9mm has between 300-400 ft.lbs. of force behind it. I would find it very surprising if the gun shot he referenced was anything bigger than a .22 or even a .38

 

[sgtbaker]

Which, I personally find very.....fishy.

Zimmerman was treated at the scene and released to police custody. If your head is slammed on the ground by someone, you're going to be alot worse off than "treated at the scene. " (which usually consists of a bandaid or some gauze and tape)

Three reasons that you would want to be checked at the ER.

1- Concussions/sutures
2-Unknown head injuries
3-Neck injuries.

If your head is slammed onto the ground, you could have a neck or spinal injury. This is akin to being in a car accident.

Now, could Zimmerman have been treated at the scene and absolutely refused to go to the ER? Sure. Does it make a LICK of sense? Nope. I mean, you're in such fear for your life that you decide to fire your weapon, but afterwards, you're fine to go about your day?

I'm calling bull ****. Bull.

According to his attorney, he did go to the hospital, the next day. You also have to remember that adrenaline is a natural pain killer. The real pain might not have set in until hours later. It's very typical for people to deny medical treatment, on the spot but once the adrenaline wears off and the pain sets in, they end up going, anyway.

 

[triforcharity]

And yet you still haven't produced the law that says you can use deadly force in response to a mere fistfight.

In fact, FL law state "Meet force with force".

I highly doubt that Zimmerman was having his head bashed into the ground, with such minor injuries.

 

[tyr_13]

Which, I personally find very.....fishy.

Zimmerman was treated at the scene and released to police custody. If your head is slammed on the ground by someone, you're going to be alot worse off than "treated at the scene. " (which usually consists of a bandaid or some gauze and tape)

Three reasons that you would want to be checked at the ER.

1- Concussions/sutures
2-Unknown head injuries
3-Neck injuries.

If your head is slammed onto the ground, you could have a neck or spinal injury. This is akin to being in a car accident.

Now, could Zimmerman have been treated at the scene and absolutely refused to go to the ER? Sure. Does it make a LICK of sense? Nope. I mean, you're in such fear for your life that you decide to fire your weapon, but afterwards, you're fine to go about your day?

I'm calling bull ****. Bull.

Not going to the ER wouldn't even be the dumbest thing Zimmermann did that night, so I'm not sure why you discount it out of hand.

'Making sense' and 'actually happened' don't always meet. In fact they don't meet often enough that things like this entire incident happened. No matter what way one cuts it, people did things that didn't make sense that night.

 

[triforcharity]

There are 50 states with gun carry laws, and many local ordinances about brandishing that are distinct from CCW.

The wording is similar enough for legal purposes, and there is no evidence to support the very specific claim about CCW permit holders being required to 'securely encase' their weapon everytime they enter a vehicle.

As a CWP holder, you are not required to have it encased in anything in a vehicle. I usually keep mine tucked between the center console and the driver's seat.

 

[WildCat]

That's what it seems to be to me.

It's fired from what appears to be a long gun of some kind. It seems odd.

If he was shot with a shotgun at that short of range, he wouldn't have stayed on his feet.

A 9mm has between 300-400 ft.lbs. of force behind it. I would find it very surprising if the gun shot he referenced was anything bigger than a .22 or even a .38

Gunshots don't blow people off their feet anywhere except in Hollywood movies. Shoot a 100lb deer with a .270 Win. (an extremely popular deer round) that has over 2,000 ft.-lbs. of energy and it doesn't knock the deer off its hooves. I don't know where you get this "knock you off your feet" stuff except from watching bad action movies?

 

[crimresearch]

On one side, we have Trayvon's mother saying, "He would never do that," in response to the accusation that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's past violent altercations (from seven years ago) are brought up as evidence that Zimmerman has violent tendancies. These seems completely acceptable to everyone. Now, I have said before that pictures of gold teeth and tattoos, even a possible tough guy internet identity are irrelavent. However, if Zimmerman's shoving match with a police officer is evidence that Zimmerman is capable of getting into a physical altercation, I think alleged swinging on a bus driver is certainly relavent to the question of whether or not Trayvon is capable of getting into a physical altercation, as well.

Zimmerman's past...

Police assault? The cop assaulted him first, he was just defending himself.

Restraining order? She wanted sex, when he wouldn't put out she assaulted him first, he was just defending himself.

The security guard incident? He was just doing his 'perceived' duty and was beaten up.

I think there may have been something about getting in between a couple in a restaurant, and a road rage type incident...where the other person 'started it'.

That's going to be packaged as a pattern of improbable excuses after engaging in shall we say 'precipitous' behavior? The sworn application false claim of his father being on the Virginia Supreme Court, may come in.

Martin's past can be brought up in light of whether or not he might have punched Zimmerman when he saw that the guy following him had a gun... except that isn't exactly damning.

And it would be a double edged sword for the defense because it feeds right back into the racism charges, true or not.

 

[Cylinder]

Hate to drag this back unnecessarily, but regarding a holster or stuffing a weapon in your waistband: I don't know enough about the law, but does this matter?

Stuffing a carry weapon is stupid and dangerous but has no real bearing in the law.

 

[Noztradamus]

Errrr.... you didn't think he had a loaded gun just stuffed in his pants did you?

ETA: Oh... I see that you've added that you did think so, sorry for the confusion.

I would assume that a self appointed 'captain' would have 'tactical' gear out the wazoo.

According to GZ's friend, Zimmerman was just going to the grocer's and off the Neighborhood Watch clock, so he may not have been kitted out.

Although as Captain of the Watch he owned the clock, and called himself onto emergency duty

 

[WildCat]

Zimmerman's past...

Police assault?

The charge was "resisting arrest without violence".

Not an assault.

Not that many people in this thread give a damn about actual facts.

 

[triforcharity]

OK, you are flatly contradicting yourself. First you said that it was illegal for a CCW holder to carry so that the gun could be seen, then to carry in a car, now you are claiming it is *illegal* for a CCW holder to carry in an inside the waistband holster?

I'm calling bovine excrement. Please start providing links for these things.

Easy, Bookkitty is saying (I think) that if it was JUST in the waistband, that might have been against the law, but doesn't know.

Im researching it now.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Yet another topic where people seem to think they're on the debate team. Pick a side and argue strenuously for it.

Then there are people like Lefty, who campaign tirelessly for due process and individual rights over those of government interference, except when he doesn't like the person. He shot a black kid, he's guilty, throw him in a hole. Case closed.

 

[tyr_13]

Yet another topic where people seem to think they're on the debate team. Pick a side and argue strenuously for it.

Then there are people like Lefty, who campaign tirelessly for due process and individual rights over those of government interference, except when he doesn't like the person. He shot a black kid, he's guilty, throw him in a hole. Case closed.

Yeah, that tends to happen, especially in cases like this. And as I said, a lot of people are going to be eating crow as more facts come to light. Besides that, coming to what turns out to be the correct answer using poor logic or invalid reasoning isn't exactly a skeptical thing.

That said, if you read the posts here you'll find a surprising number of posters are taking a nuanced, reasoned approach, even those who have picked a 'side'.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

The moment Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin kept punching, he was justifiably dead.

Untrue.

If you are the one who committed a crime, anything that happens after that you're exempt from claiming self defense.

Period.

Want the law? I've cited it before.

 

[crimresearch]

Easy, Bookkitty is saying (I think) that if it was JUST in the waistband, that might have been against the law, but doesn't know.

Im researching it now.

I can see where there might be a local ordinance about careless handling or something, I'm just objecting to the broad brush and absolute nature.

It reminds me of all those 'Silly Laws' lists, like
'In Pennsylvania it is *illegal* to eat an ice cream cone while naked...',where there is no such actual law.

What likely happened was someone got drunk and ended up being charged with lewd conduct, not eating an ice cream cone.

ETA: Not saying there aren't silly laws, just that those lists are padded.